mcp-saas-toolkit

github_create_issue

Create a GitHub issue with labels, assignees, and milestone. Supports Markdown body for detailed descriptions.

Instructions

Create a new issue in a GitHub repository. Supports labels, assignees, and milestone.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Issue body (supports Markdown)
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner
`title`	Yes	Issue title
`labels`	No	Labels to apply (must already exist in the repo)
`assignees`	No	GitHub usernames to assign
`milestone`	No	Milestone number to associate with

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It states 'Create' implying mutation but does not disclose required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. Limited insight into behavior beyond creation.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loading purpose. No wasted words, but could be more structured with usage notes.

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?

Adequate for a creation tool with well-described parameters, but lacks information on return values (e.g., created issue object) and error conditions. No output schema to compensate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. Description adds minimal value by naming supports for labels, assignees, and milestone, but does not enhance understanding beyond schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create' and resource 'new issue in a GitHub repository'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_pull_request (creates PRs) and github_list_issues (lists issues).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites mentioned.

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