Skip to main content
Glama
saidsef

GitHub PR Issue Analyser

by saidsef
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Github Search Issues Prs

github_search_issues_prs
Read-only

Search GitHub issues and pull requests with custom queries and qualifiers to find open, closed, or merged items by text, label, or repository.

Instructions

Searches issues and pull requests by text and qualifiers. Unlike github_list_open_issues_prs the query is the caller's, so closed and merged items are reachable and any qualifier GitHub search accepts works. GitHub runs a lexical search when search_type is absent, so the default sends none. Semantic and hybrid cover issues alone, and GitHub falls back to lexical for a query that can reach a PR.

Workflow and conventions: github_get_skill('issue-management').

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
queryYesTerms and qualifiers, e.g. 'rate limit repo:owner/name is:closed label:bug'
per_pageNoNumber of results per page (1-100)
search_typeNolexical matches words. semantic and hybrid match issues by meaning and need is:issue in the querylexical

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv54.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / search_type
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "lexical",
+  "description": "lexical matches words. semantic and hybrid match issues by meaning and need is:issue in the query",
+  "enum": [
+    "lexical",
+    "semantic",
+    "hybrid"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv42.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnly/openWorld already declared, the description still earns credit by disclosing fallback behavior: GitHub runs lexical when search_type is absent, semantic/hybrid cover issues alone, and GitHub falls back to lexical for a query that can reach a PR. Minor gap: it says the default 'sends none' while the schema declares default 'lexical', a nuance an agent may trip on.

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?

Purpose and sibling differentiation come first, then the search_type behavior, then a workflow pointer — a sensible front-loaded ordering with little waste. The trailing 'github_get_skill(issue-management)' line is terse but earns its place as a routing hint.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and pagination params are self-documenting in the schema. What remains is behavioral nuance (rated/abuse limits, result ordering), which is not essential to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the baseline is already decent; the description adds meaning for search_type by explaining what lexical vs semantic/hybrid actually match and the is:issue prerequisite, which the enum description only partly conveys. The free-form query qualifier syntax is left to the schema example, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Searches issues and pull requests') plus the mechanism ('by text and qualifiers'), and explicitly contrasts with sibling github_list_open_issues_prs, noting that closed and merged items are reachable. An agent can distinguish the two search paths without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the alternative (github_list_open_issues_prs) and the condition that selects this tool: a caller-supplied query with arbitrary qualifiers. It also gives when-to-use rules for each search_type (semantic/hybrid need is:issue and cover 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

Other Tools