Skip to main content
Glama

get_issue_details

Retrieve specific issue information from an AtomGit repository by providing the repository owner, name, and issue number.

Instructions

Get details of a specific issue in a AtomGit repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesRepository owner
repoYesRepository name
issue_numberYesIssue number

Implementation Reference

  • Actual implementation of get_issue_details tool: fetches issue details from AtomGit API using atomGitRequest.
    export async function getIssue(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      issue_number: number
    ) {
      return atomGitRequest(
        `https://api.atomgit.com/repos/${encodeURIComponent(owner)}/${encodeURIComponent(repo)}/issues/${encodeURIComponent(issue_number)}`,
        {
          method: "GET",
        }
      );
    }
  • Zod schema for input validation of get_issue_details tool.
    export const GetIssueSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("Repository owner"),
      repo: z.string().describe("Repository name"),
      issue_number: z.number().describe("Issue number"),
    });
  • index.ts:96-100 (registration)
    Tool registration in MCP server, defining name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "get_issue_details",
      description: "Get details of a specific issue in a AtomGit repository",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(issues.GetIssueSchema),
    },
  • MCP server handler case that parses arguments, calls the issues.getIssue function, and formats the response.
    case "get_issue_details": {
      const args = issues.GetIssueSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const { owner, repo, issue_number } = args;
    
      const result = await issues.getIssue(owner, repo, issue_number);
      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 action ('Get details') but doesn't describe what 'details' include (e.g., title, status, comments), whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no words. This exemplifies conciseness with zero unnecessary elaboration.

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 details on return values (what 'details' entail), error cases, or behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate more to guide the agent effectively, but it does not, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 descriptions (e.g., 'Repository owner', 'Repository name', 'Issue number'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific issue in a AtomGit repository'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_repository_issues' (which lists multiple issues) by focusing on a single issue, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The specificity earns a 4, as it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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., needing an existing issue number), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_issue_labels' or 'list_repository_issues'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is minimal guidance.

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