Skip to main content
Glama

list_issue_assignees

Retrieve assigned users for a specific issue in an AtomGit repository to track responsibility and collaboration progress.

Instructions

List assignees for a specific issue in a AtomGit repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesRepository owner
repoYesRepository name

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic by making a GET request to the AtomGit API endpoint for listing repository assignees.
    export async function listIssueAssignees(
      owner: string,
      repo: string
    ) {
      return atomGitRequest(
        `https://api.atomgit.com/repos/${encodeURIComponent(owner)}/${encodeURIComponent(repo)}/assignees`,
        {
          method: "GET",
        }
      );
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters (owner and repo) for the list_issue_assignees tool.
    export const ListAssigneesSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("Repository owner"),
      repo: z.string().describe("Repository name"),
    });
  • index.ts:102-104 (registration)
    Tool registration in the ListTools response, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    name: "list_issue_assignees",
    description: "List assignees for a specific issue in a AtomGit repository",
    inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(issues.ListAssigneesSchema),
  • index.ts:361-369 (registration)
    Dispatch case in the CallToolRequest handler that parses input, calls the issues.listIssueAssignees function, and formats the response.
    case "list_issue_assignees": {
      const args = issues.ListAssigneesSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const { owner, repo } = args;
    
      const result = await issues.listIssueAssignees(owner, repo);
      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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing assignees but doesn't describe what the output looks like, whether it's paginated, if authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like, how many assignees might be returned, or any error conditions. For a tool that presumably returns structured data, more context is needed beyond the basic purpose statement.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (owner and repo) adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('assignees for a specific issue in a AtomGit repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_issue_details' which might also provide assignee information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is preferred over sibling tools like 'get_issue_details', or any contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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