@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

github_get_issue

Retrieve detailed information about a specific GitHub issue by providing the repository owner, repo name, and issue number. Get status, labels, comments, and more to understand and manage issues effectively.

Instructions

Get details of a specific issue

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>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner username
`issue_number`	Yes	Issue number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' and does not state authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. As a read operation, more transparency about what 'details' are included would be helpful.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that communicates the purpose efficiently. It is appropriately terse for a simple retrieval tool with no extra required context.

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?

For a simple GET operation with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not mention what data is returned, whether any authentication is required, or how it relates to sibling tools like github_list_issues. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description (owner, repo, issue_number). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific issue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_list_issues or github_update_issue. It is instantly clear what the tool does.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_list_issues. The context is obvious from the name but the description does not explicitly say 'use this to fetch one issue' or mention exclusions.

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

Deploy Server