Retrieve detailed information about a specific GitHub issue by providing its issue ID, enabling users to access issue data for project management and tracking purposes.
Get details of a specific GitHub issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 tool retrieves details but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get details') efficiently, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word serves a clear function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter details, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'issueId' parameter beyond implying it identifies a specific issue. It lacks details on format (e.g., numeric ID, URL), validation, or examples. With one required parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific GitHub issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_issues' by specifying retrieval of a single issue rather than listing multiple. However, it lacks specificity about what details are included, 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.
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 like 'list_issues' or 'update_issue'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue ID) or contextual factors, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This minimal guidance is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.