Windows Developer MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

github_list_issues

List GitHub issues from a repository with optional filters for state (open, closed, all), label, and max count to retrieve the specific issues you need.

Instructions

List issues for a GitHub repository.

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": "github_list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name.
`label`	No	Filter by label name.
`limit`	No	Maximum issues to return (1–100). Default: 20.
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner.
`state`	No	Issue state — "open", "closed", or "all". Default: "open".	open

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavior like default state filter, pagination/limit behavior, or auth/rate-limit implications. It adds no transparency beyond the literal purpose.

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?

Single sentence with clear front-loaded verb and subject. No fluff or redundancy; efficiently states the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params) and the presence of detailed schema and output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention that issues can be filtered by state/label or that defaults apply, but those are present in the schema. The description adds little value beyond the name.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with specifics (e.g., limit range, state defaults). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'issues' for a GitHub repository, clearly indicating a read/multiple-issue operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like github_get_issue or github_list_prs, lacking direct 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling GitHub tools such as github_get_issue for single issues.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server