Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

by cloud9-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

github_create_issue

Create a new issue in a GitHub repository to track work, bugs, or requests. Include title, body, labels, and assignees as needed.

Instructions

Create a new issue in a repository

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoIssue body content
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner username
titleYesIssue title
labelsNoArray of label names
assigneesNoArray of usernames to assign

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create a new issue', implying mutation but not mentioning permissions, rate limits, return value, or side effects such as whether the issue is immediately visible or if duplicate titles are allowed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, nine words, front-loaded with the verb and object. No wasted content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and all parameters are documented, but absent annotations or an output schema, the description lacks details on return behavior or potential errors, leaving the agent with some uncertainty about what to expect after invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage of all six parameters with clear descriptions, so the description need not add parameter details. It adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action ('Create') and object ('a new issue') with a location ('in a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_update_issue, github_list_issues, and github_get_issue.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_create_pull_request or github_update_issue, nor any prerequisites or conditions such as repository existence or permissions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools