MCP GitHub CrunchTools

Search Issues Tool

search_issues_tool

Read-only

Search for issues and pull requests across GitHub.

Instructions

Search for issues and pull requests across GitHub.

Uses GitHub issue search syntax (e.g., "is:open is:pr author:octocat").

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_issues_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default: 1)
`query`	Yes	Search query string
`per_page`	No	Results per page, max 100 (default: 30)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the search-syntax flavor, but does not disclose result limits, pagination behavior, or rate-limit considerations beyond what the schema and output schema provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the syntax hint; no wasted prose. It could arguably fold the example into a single tighter statement, but it is efficient as-is.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the three parameters. For a search tool the description is largely complete, though it omits how results are ordered or capped, which is minor given the structured fields.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so query, page, and per_page are already documented in the schema. The inline GitHub search syntax example ("is:open is:pr author:octocat") adds genuine meaning about how the query parameter is constructed, keeping this just above the baseline rather than below it.

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 a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("issues and pull requests") with the scope "across GitHub", which separates it from get_issue_tool and list_issues_tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related search_code_tool or list_issues_tool, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

The description gives search syntax but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_issues_tool, list_pull_requests_tool, or search_code_tool. There are no exclusions or conditions that select this search path over the filter-based list tools.

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