@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

github_update_issue

Update an existing GitHub issue by changing its title, body, state (open/closed), or labels. Specify owner, repo, and issue number to apply modifications.

Instructions

Update an existing 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_update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Issue body content
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner username
`state`	No	Issue state
`title`	No	Issue title
`labels`	No	Array of label names
`issue_number`	Yes	Issue number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' which implies modification, but does not explain whether it performs a partial update, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any authentication/authorization requirements.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified to the point of being redundant with the tool name. It lacks any substantive structure or additional context, making it more under-specification than effective conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 3 required) and absence of an output schema, the description should clarify update semantics, return values, or side effects. It does none of this, so the description is inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (e.g., body, state, title, labels). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue and get_issue. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of the issue can be updated (e.g., title, body, state), making it slightly less informative than ideal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_issue for new issues or get_issue for viewing. No prerequisites or contextual hints are provided.

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

Deploy Server