GitHub PR Issue Analyser

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Github Create Issue

github_create_issue

Create a GitHub issue in a specified repository by providing owner, repo, title, and body, with optional labels and milestone.

Instructions

Creates a new issue. The update tools replace the label set as given and never re-add 'mcp'; only the create tools append it, and only when mcp_label is left enabled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`labels`	No	Labels to apply, with the 'mcp' tracking label appended unless mcp_label is False. Omit to leave the issue unlabelled
`mcp_label`	No	Append the 'mcp' tracking label to labels. Pass False to opt out
`milestone`	No	Milestone title to file it under. Omit or pass null for no milestone
`repo_name`	Yes
`repo_owner`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`state`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`author`	Yes
`labels`	Yes
`number`	Yes
`html_url`	Yes
`assignees`	Yes
`milestone`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv42.1.1Sep 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / labels / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / labels / default
```
Added value: +null
```

addedInput schema / properties / labels / description

Added value: +"Labels to apply, with the 'mcp' tracking label appended unless mcp_label is False. Omit to leave the issue unlabelled"

removedInput schema / properties / labels / items
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
removedInput schema / properties / labels / type
```
Removed value: -"array"
```

addedInput schema / properties / mcp_label

Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Append the 'mcp' tracking label to labels. Pass False to opt out",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "repo_owner",
-  "repo_name",
-  "title",
-  "body",
-  "labels"
-]New value: +[
+  "repo_owner",
+  "repo_name",
+  "title",
+  "body"
+]

Addedv42.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavior: the 'mcp' tracking label is appended by default unless mcp_label is disabled, and update tools do not re-add it. This adds value beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). It does not contradict the annotations, and the label nuance is exactly the kind of hidden trait that agents need.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and packs the important label nuance into the second. The second sentence is slightly dense and could be more readable, but every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create operation with an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a critical caveat about label handling. The required parameters are clear from the schema. It could have explicitly named github_update_issue as the alternative, but the main context an agent needs to call this tool correctly is present.

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 only 43% (labels, mcp_label, milestone have descriptions; body, title, repo_owner, repo_name do not). The description mentions the mcp_label append behavior, which partially overlaps with the schema, but it does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining the meaning of the four undocumented parameters. Their names are suggestive, but the description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Creates a new issue,' a clear verb+resource statement that identifies exactly what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from update tools by contrasting their label-handling behavior, giving an agent a clear way to separate create from update operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit behavioral guidance: update tools replace the label set and never re-add 'mcp', while only create tools append it when mcp_label is enabled. This gives context on when this tool's behavior differs from update_issue, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly or state 'use for new issues only'.

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

Deploy Server