Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RepoControl MCP

RepoControl MCP

by johannschiffer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_issue

Open a new GitHub issue in a target repository with a title, Markdown body, and optional labels.

Instructions

Create a new issue in a GitHub repository.

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>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesMarkdown body content of issue.
repoYesTarget repository in 'owner/repo' format.
titleYesIssue title.
labelsNoOptional list of label strings.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutating write operation, what permissions/token scopes are required, that it triggers notifications/webhooks, or what the response contains (e.g., the created issue number/URL).

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful given the absence of annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more: what is returned after creation, required permissions, and side effects. As written, the agent lacks the behavioral context needed to invoke it 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%, with every parameter documented in the schema including the optional 'labels' array and the 'owner/repo' format for 'repo'. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('issue in a GitHub repository'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like create_pull_request, which is the nearest alternative action in the same domain.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_pull_request for PRs, or comment tools for discussing existing issues), nor any prerequisites such as required auth or repository permissions. The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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