Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_get_repository_collaborators

Retrieve all collaborators for a repository who can be assigned to issues.

Instructions

Get all collaborators for a repository who can be assigned to issues (Note: Repository collaborators not available in ZenHub API - use workspace users instead)

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": {
      "repository_id": "<repository_id>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_get_repository_collaborators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repository_idYesRepository ID (Note: Not supported in ZenHub API)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explicitly states the lack of API support, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail what happens when the tool is called (e.g., error, empty result). With no annotations, this is partially transparent.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the purpose, then adds the critical warning. However, it could be more structured by separating the warning from the function.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool that appears broken, the description warns users but fails to explain what happens upon invocation (e.g., error message, empty list). No output schema or return information is provided, leaving the tool's actual effect ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter has a description, but it only notes that the parameter is not supported. While this adds meaning beyond the schema, it is negative and unhelpful for actual usage. Given 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is reduced due to the counterproductive information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's intended purpose (getting collaborators for a repository), but immediately contradicts by noting the API does not support it. This is misleading and does not differentiate from the likely working sibling tool 'zenhub_get_repository_assignable_users'.

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?

The description suggests using workspace users instead, which provides an alternative. However, it does not specify when to use this tool (likely never) or clearly outline appropriate contexts.

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