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

@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

by cloud9-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

github_list_issues

List issues from a GitHub repository with optional filters for state, labels, and pagination.

Instructions

List issues for 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>"
    },
    "name": "github_list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner username
stateNoIssue state filter
labelsNoComma-separated list of label names
per_pageNoResults per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It only says 'List issues,' which is read-only, but does not mention pagination, default state, authentication needs, or the absence of side effects. No additional behavioral context is offered.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too thin: it does not explain what is returned (e.g., an array of issues), default filter behavior, or how pagination and filtering options work. The schema lists parameters but the description fails to synthesize them into actionable context.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the diagram's parameter semantics are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or defaults.

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 is specific with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('issues for a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like github_list_commits and github_list_pull_requests.

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_get_issue for a single issue or github_create_issue for creating. The description states only the action, leaving usage context implied with no exclusions.

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