Skip to main content
Glama

check_if_user_is_assignable

Verify whether a specific user can be assigned to an issue in an AtomGit repository before making the assignment.

Instructions

Check if a user can be assigned to an issue in a AtomGit repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesRepository owner
repoYesRepository name
assigneeYesUsername to be checked

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that performs the GET request to the AtomGit API endpoint to check if a user is assignable.
    export async function checkIfUserIsAssignable(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      assignee: string
    ) {
      return atomGitRequest(
        `https://api.atomgit.com/repos/${encodeURIComponent(owner)}/${encodeURIComponent(repo)}/assignees/${encodeURIComponent(assignee)}`,
        {
          method: "GET",
        }
      );
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the tool: owner, repo, and assignee.
    export const CheckAssigneeSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("Repository owner"),
      repo: z.string().describe("Repository name"),
      assignee: z.string().describe("Username to be checked"),
    });
  • index.ts:106-110 (registration)
    Registration of the tool in the MCP server's ListTools response, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "check_if_user_is_assignable",
      description: "Check if a user can be assigned to an issue in a AtomGit repository",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(issues.CheckAssigneeSchema),
    },
  • Dispatch handler in the main CallToolRequest that validates arguments and calls the core handler function.
    case "check_if_user_is_assignable": {
      const args = issues.CheckAssigneeSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const { owner, repo, assignee } = args;
    
      const result = await issues.checkIfUserIsAssignable(owner, repo, assignee);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
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 states the tool 'checks' something, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'can be assigned' means (e.g., permissions, repository access, or issue state). It also omits details like error conditions, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Check'), making it easy to parse. There is no wasted verbiage, and it fits the tool's simplicity appropriately.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'can be assigned' entails, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to compensate, which it does not.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (owner, repo, assignee). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra description input.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a user can be assigned to an issue in a AtomGit repository.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('user'), and context ('issue in a AtomGit repository'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_assignees' or 'assign_issue', which would require 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the issue must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_issue_assignees' (which lists assignable users) or 'assign_issue' (which assigns a user). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kaiyuanxiaobing/atomgit-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server