Skip to main content
Glama

list_repository_issues

Retrieve and display issues from an AtomGit repository to track bugs, feature requests, and tasks for project management.

Instructions

List issues in a AtomGit repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesRepository owner
repoYesRepository name

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the API request to list issues in the specified repository.
    export async function listIssues(owner: string, repo: string) {
      return atomGitRequest(
        `https://api.atomgit.com/repos/${encodeURIComponent(owner)}/${encodeURIComponent(repo)}/issues`,
        {
          method: "GET",
        }
      );
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters (owner and repo) for the list_repository_issues tool.
    export const ListIssuesSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("Repository owner"),
      repo: z.string().describe("Repository name"),
    });
  • index.ts:91-95 (registration)
    Registration of the list_repository_issues tool in the MCP server, including name, description, and schema reference.
    {
      name: "list_repository_issues",
      description: "List issues in a AtomGit repository",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(issues.ListIssuesSchema),
    },
  • MCP server wrapper handler that parses input arguments and delegates to the core listIssues function.
    case "list_repository_issues": {
      const args = issues.ListIssuesSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const { owner, repo } = args;
    
      const result = await issues.listIssues(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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but reveals nothing about permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, filtering capabilities, or what data is returned. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic 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 complexity of repository issue listing (which typically involves filtering, pagination, and permission considerations), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 both parameters clearly documented as 'Repository owner' and 'Repository name'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List issues') and target resource ('in a AtomGit repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_issue_details' or 'list_issue_assignees', which prevents a perfect 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. With multiple issue-related sibling tools available (get_issue_details, list_issue_assignees, etc.), there's no indication of when this listing function is appropriate versus more specific tools.

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