get_issue_toolRetrieve a specific GitHub issue by number to view its details, comments, and status. Requires repository and issue number.
Get a single GitHub issue by number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | No | Repository owner (defaults to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG if unset) | |
| issue_number | Yes | Issue number (e.g., #42) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, behavior for a missing/nonexistent issue number, or rate limits. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the behavioral gaps remain significant for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and scope lead the sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-item read with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers the essential action. It is slightly thin on error/edge-case behavior, but nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents repo, owner, and issue_number. The phrase 'by number' loosely reinforces issue_number but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (GitHub issue) with clear scope (single, by number), which distinguishes it from list_issues_tool and search_issues_tool by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'single issue by number' suggests the lookup-one-item case, contrasted against the list/search siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.