get_issue
Retrieve details of a specific GitHub issue by supplying the repository owner, name, and issue number.
Instructions
Get an issue
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | ||
| issue_number | Yes |
Retrieve details of a specific GitHub issue by supplying the repository owner, name, and issue number.
Get an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | ||
| issue_number | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Minimal behavioral disclosure. Implies a read operation but no details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. No annotations to supplement.
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?
Extremely concise (3 words) but at the cost of necessary information. Under-specification is not conciseness.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is entirely inadequate. Does not explain return value or how issue_number is used.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The three required parameters (owner, repo, issue_number) are completely undocumented in the description.
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 'Get an issue' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_pull_request or list_issues.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_issues or get_pull_request. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nouhailadahmany/github-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server