Skip to main content
Glama

get_issue

Retrieve specific issues from a Gitee repository by providing the owner, repository name, and issue number. Simplifies issue management and tracking.

Instructions

获取 Gitee 仓库中的特定 Issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_numberYesIssue number
ownerYesRepository owner path (enterprise, organization, or personal path)
repoYesRepository path

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that retrieves a specific issue from a Gitee repository by making an API request and parsing the response with GiteeIssueSchema.
    export async function getIssue(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      issueNumber: number | string
    ) {
      owner = validateOwnerName(owner);
      repo = validateRepositoryName(repo);
    
      const url = `/repos/${owner}/${repo}/issues/${issueNumber}`;
      const response = await giteeRequest(url);
    
      return GiteeIssueSchema.parse(response);
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the get_issue tool: owner, repo, and issue_number.
    export const GetIssueSchema = z.object({
      // 仓库所属空间地址 (企业、组织或个人的地址 path)
      owner: z.string().describe("Repository owner path (enterprise, organization, or personal path)"),
      // 仓库路径 (path)
      repo: z.string().describe("Repository path"),
      // Issue 编号
      issue_number: z.union([z.number(), z.string()]).describe("Issue number"),
    });
  • index.ts:159-167 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_issue' tool in the MCP server, specifying name, description, schema, and handler that delegates to issueOperations.getIssue.
    server.registerTool({
      name: "get_issue",
      description: "获取 Gitee 仓库中的特定 Issue",
      schema: issueOperations.GetIssueSchema,
      handler: async (params: any) => {
        const { owner, repo, issue_number } = params;
        return await issueOperations.getIssue(owner, repo, issue_number);
      },
    });
Behavior2/5

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 only states the action ('获取') without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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's complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., issue details, comments, status), error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'update_issue'. For a tool with no output schema, more context about the return value would be helpful.

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%, with all three parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, 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.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool '获取 Gitee 仓库中的特定 Issue' (gets a specific issue from a Gitee repository), which provides a clear verb ('获取') and resource ('Issue'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_issues' or explain how it differs (single issue retrieval vs. listing multiple issues). The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'list_issues' for browsing issues or 'update_issue' for modifying them. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access) or contextual constraints. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

Related 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/normal-coder/gitee-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server