MCP Issue
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEFAULT_REPO | Yes | Default repository name | |
| GITHUB_TOKEN | Yes | Your GitHub token with permissions to create issues | |
| DEFAULT_OWNER | Yes | Your username or organization |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| git_diffB | Retorna um diff do repositório atual. Use para entender alterações locais. |
| create_github_issueC | Cria uma issue no GitHub usando Octokit |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| draft_issue_from_diff | Converte um diff em um rascunho de issue |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one creates GitHub issues via Octokit, while the other returns a diff of the current repository. There is no overlap in functionality or ambiguity between them.
Both tools use snake_case naming, which is consistent. However, one tool includes 'github' in its name while the other does not, creating a minor deviation in naming pattern. The verbs 'create' and 'git_diff' (which is more of a noun phrase) are not perfectly aligned in style.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a domain that appears to involve GitHub and repository operations. This limited set does not provide comprehensive coverage for typical workflows, such as reading or updating issues, managing repositories, or handling other common tasks.
The tool set is severely incomplete for a server named 'MCP Issue' and including GitHub-related functionality. There are significant gaps: no tools to list, get, update, or delete issues, and no broader GitHub operations like managing pull requests or repositories. This will likely cause agent failures in many scenarios.