create_issueCreate a new issue in a Forgejo or Gitea repository by specifying owner, repo, title, and optional body, labels, assignees, milestone, or due date.
Create an issue. Labels are given as numeric IDs (see list_labels).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| title | Yes | ||
| labels | No | ||
| due_date | No | RFC3339 timestamp | |
| assignees | No | ||
| milestone | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds that labels must be numeric IDs, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it doesn't mention permissions required, side effects (notifications, webhooks), or error behavior for an openWorld write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the label ID caveat is essential and brief. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter open-world write tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description covers the label quirk but omits required permissions, what the response returns (probably the created issue), and semantics of other fields. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 38%, so the description must compensate for several undocumented parameters (body, title, labels items, assignees, milestone). It only clarifies labels as integer IDs, leaving title/body/assignees/milestone semantics entirely to the schema, which itself lacks descriptions for most of them. This partially compensates but not fully for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (issue), clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_issue, get_issue, or create_pull_request. No ambiguity about what the tool does, though it doesn't differentiate when to use it over other creation flows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The note 'see list_labels' implies how to obtain valid label IDs, which is implicit usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., auth scopes, repo access), and no exclusions. Adequate but thin.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.