Skip to main content
Glama

vet

Read-only

Analyze GitHub issues to identify suitable contribution opportunities by evaluating clarity, scope, assignment status, and activity level.

Instructions

Analyze a GitHub issue to determine if it is a good candidate for contribution. Checks for clarity, scope, existing assignees, and staleness.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueUrlYesFull GitHub issue URL to vet (e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123)

Implementation Reference

  • The main logic function for vetting a GitHub issue.
    export async function runVet(options: VetOptions): Promise<VetOutput> {
      validateUrl(options.issueUrl);
      validateGitHubUrl(options.issueUrl, ISSUE_URL_PATTERN, 'issue');
    
      const token = requireGitHubToken();
    
      const discovery = new IssueDiscovery(token);
    
      const candidate = await discovery.vetIssue(options.issueUrl);
    
      return {
        issue: {
          repo: candidate.issue.repo,
          number: candidate.issue.number,
          title: candidate.issue.title,
          url: candidate.issue.url,
          labels: candidate.issue.labels,
        },
        recommendation: candidate.recommendation,
        reasonsToApprove: candidate.reasonsToApprove,
        reasonsToSkip: candidate.reasonsToSkip,
        projectHealth: candidate.projectHealth,
        vettingResult: candidate.vettingResult,
      };
    }
  • MCP tool registration for the 'vet' command.
    // 4. vet — Vet an issue for contribution suitability
    server.registerTool(
      'vet',
      {
        description:
          'Analyze a GitHub issue to determine if it is a good candidate for contribution. Checks for clarity, scope, existing assignees, and staleness.',
        inputSchema: {
          issueUrl: z.string().describe('Full GitHub issue URL to vet (e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123)'),
        },
        annotations: { readOnlyHint: true },
      },
      wrapTool(runVet),
    );
  • Zod input schema definition for the 'vet' tool.
      inputSchema: {
        issueUrl: z.string().describe('Full GitHub issue URL to vet (e.g. https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123)'),
      },
      annotations: { readOnlyHint: true },
    },
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly what gets analyzed (clarity, scope, assignees, staleness) and the decision criteria (good candidate for contribution). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two efficiently constructed sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary purpose (analyze for contribution), followed by specific evaluation dimensions. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Sufficiently complete for a single-parameter analysis tool. Combines clear behavioral description with read-only safety annotation. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers the tool's evaluative purpose without needing to detail return values.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the issueUrl parameter format and example. Description appropriately focuses on tool behavior rather than repeating parameter details, meriting the baseline score.

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?

States specific verb 'Analyze' and resource 'GitHub issue' with clear scope ('determine if it is a good candidate for contribution'). Lists specific evaluation criteria (clarity, scope, assignees, staleness) that implicitly distinguish it from sibling 'read' or 'search' tools, though lacks explicit comparison.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides implied usage context by framing the tool as evaluating contribution candidacy, but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or comparison to alternatives like 'read' (which merely fetches content) or 'claim' (which assigns the issue).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/costajohnt/oss-autopilot'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server