Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
github-triage-mcp

github-triage-mcp

by kenzoob
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get issue

get_issue

Fetch a GitHub issue's body and its 20 most recent comments to understand and triage the reported problem.

Instructions

Returns an issue's body and its 20 most recent comments.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
ownerYes
numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only the 20 most recent comments are returned, which is a real behavioral constraint, but it omits auth requirements, error behavior for missing issues, and any rate-limit context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key return-content fact is stated immediately.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape but leaves auth, error handling, and parameter semantics undocumented. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so owner, repo, and number have no documented meaning anywhere. The description adds no parameter detail at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter names themselves are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 and resource: 'Returns an issue's body and its 20 most recent comments.' This clearly identifies the operation and scope. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_issues, search_issues, or repo_activity, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_issues or search_issues. The description only says what is returned, leaving route selection entirely to inference.

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