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

github-triage-mcp

by kenzoob
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List issues

list_issues

Retrieve issues (not pull requests) from an allowlisted repository, showing labels, author, date, and comment count. Filter by state, labels, or limit results.

Instructions

Lists issues (not pull requests) for an allowlisted repository, with labels, author, date and comment count.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
limitNo
ownerYes
stateNoopen
labelsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful constraint (allowlisted repository, implying a scoping/permission restriction) but omits pagination behavior, how the limit parameter is applied, ordering, and rate limits for what is clearly a paged read tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it spends words on return fields while leaving the actual parameters unexplained.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It partially covers return fields but leaves state/limit/owner/repo semantics and pagination entirely undocumented.

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% across 5 parameters. The description names only 'labels' (a real parameter) while owner, repo, limit, and state are undocumented anywhere; 'author, date and comment count' are output fields, not parameters, so they do not compensate for the input gap.

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 (Lists) and resource (issues), and explicitly excludes pull requests, which is the most common ambiguity for this resource type. However it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_issues or get_issue, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description never states when to prefer this over search_issues (filtered/query-based listing) or get_issue (single-item retrieval), and gives no prerequisites besides the allowlist mention.

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