get_issue_toolFetch a single GitHub issue by number from a repository. Provide owner, repo, and issue number to retrieve issue details.
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.
v1.3.2Input schema / properties / issue_number / minimumAdded value: +1v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond restating the operation — no auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior for missing issues, or pagination. With annotations covering only the safety profile, the description leaves the rest of the behavior undisclosed.
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 zero waste and no filler. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully covered by the schema, making the description minimally sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any sibling routing or usage context, which leaves the definition adequate but thin for a tool in this crowded sibling set.
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 repo, owner (with its GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG default), and issue_number are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb (Get) and resource (GitHub issue) and scopes it with 'single' and 'by number', which distinguishes it from siblings like list_issues_tool and search_issues_tool. It stops short of naming those alternatives, so it does not reach a 5.
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?
The phrase 'by number' implies the tool is used when a specific issue number is known, which is a reasonable usage cue. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_issues_tool or get_pull_request_tool, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.