Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

by gnvidia06-ux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Listar issues

list_issues

List open or closed issues from a specific GitHub repository to review bugs, tasks, or pending work, and find issue numbers for comments or closure. Pull requests are excluded.

Instructions

Lista los issues de un repositorio específico de GitHub (por defecto solo los abiertos). Usala cuando el usuario quiera ver pendientes, bugs o tareas de un repo, o necesite el número de un issue para cerrarlo o comentarlo. No incluye pull requests.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesNombre del repositorio, sin el owner. Ejemplo: 'mi-proyecto'.
ownerNoUsuario u organización dueña del repositorio. Si se omite, se usa el usuario autenticado (dueño del token).
stateNoEstado de los issues a listar. Por defecto 'open' (abiertos).open
perPageNoCantidad máxima de resultados a devolver (1 a 100). Por defecto 30.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied and there is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context — pull requests are excluded and only open issues are returned by default — but it says nothing about authentication/token usage, pagination beyond the perPage cap, ordering, or what an issue record contains. Useful but incomplete for a zero-annotation, zero-output-schema tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then usage triggers, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only list tool with four parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, default scope, and the PR exclusion. However, with no output schema present, the description should at least sketch the shape of returned issue data (number, title, state, labels) to let the agent chain into close_issue or add_comment_to_issue confidently.

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 all four parameters (repo, owner, state, perPage) are already documented with examples, patterns, defaults, and the enum. The description only restates the state default ('por defecto solo los abiertos'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Lista los issues de un repositorio específico de GitHub'), and immediately bounds the scope with the default-open behavior and the exclusion 'No incluye pull requests'. An agent can distinguish this from create_issue, close_issue, and add_comment_to_issue without opening any schema.

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 clear when-to-use triggers ('ver pendientes, bugs o tareas de un repo') and a downstream motivation ('necesite el número de un issue para cerrarlo o comentarlo') that connects it to the close/comment siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not section naming alternative tools (e.g. list_repositories for discovering repos), so it falls short of a 5.

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