Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub MCP Server

GitHub MCP Server

by dantecaceres92
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

close_issue

Close an open GitHub issue by number when it is resolved or the user requests closure.

Instructions

Cierra un issue abierto de un repositorio de GitHub a partir de su número. Úsalo cuando el usuario diga que un issue está resuelto o pida cerrarlo.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "issueNumber": "<issueNumber>"
    },
    "name": "close_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesNombre del repositorio
ownerNoUsuario u organización dueña del repositorio. Si se omite, se usa el usuario autenticado
issueNumberYesNúmero del issue a cerrar (ej: 3 para el issue #3)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the target must be an open issue; it says nothing about required permissions, whether closing is reversible/reopenable, how an already-closed issue is handled, or whether a closing comment is added. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences: the action first, the trigger second. No filler, no redundancy, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for selecting the tool on a simple 3-parameter mutation, and the schema is fully documented. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no signal about permissions, side effects, or error behavior on closed/missing issues, which this description could have supplied.

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% and each parameter is documented, including the optional owner fallback to the authenticated user. The description only restates that the issue is identified by number, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Cierra un issue abierto de un repositorio de GitHub') and specifies the identifier used ('a partir de su número'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_issue or list_issues by the action named, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit triggering condition: use it when the user says an issue is resolved or asks to close it. It does not cover when NOT to use it (e.g., reopening, closing via comment, issues that are already closed) or name alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools