Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CNB Remote MCP

CNB Remote MCP

by htazq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get an issue

issue_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single issue by number from a specified repository path to inspect its details for tracking, triage, or review.

Instructions

Get one issue by number.

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>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "issue_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"
numberYesIssue number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top: no behavior for a missing or closed issue, no auth/scoping notes, no indication of what a successful call yields. With no output schema either, this is a real gap for a retrieval tool.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient but thin, bordering on under-specification rather than being over-written.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage and rich annotations, the minimum needed to invoke it is present. However, with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what an issue record contains or how failures surface, and it does neither.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions (repo path format, issue number). The description only restates that lookup is by number, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Get one issue') plus the lookup key ('by number'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like issue_list or issue_comment_list, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer issue_list, and no prerequisites such as needing a known issue number. At best the phrase 'by number' weakly implies identity-based lookup, leaving routing between issue_get and issue_list to inference.

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