Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
sammcj

MCP GitHub Issue Server

by sammcj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

MCP GitHub 이슈 서버

대장간 배지

대장간 배지

LLM이 GitHub 이슈를 완료할 작업으로 사용할 수 있도록 하는 MCP 서버입니다. 이 서버를 통해 LLM은 GitHub 이슈 세부 정보를 가져와 작업 설명으로 사용할 수 있습니다.

설치

수동 설치

지엑스피1

Smithery를 통해 설치

Smithery를 통해 Claude Desktop용 MCP GitHub Issue Server를 자동으로 설치하려면 다음을 수행합니다.

npx -y @smithery/cli install mcp-github-issue --client claude

Related MCP server: mcp-github-issues

용법

MCP 서버로서

MCP 구성에 추가:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "github-issue": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["mcp-github-issue"]
    }
  }
}

사용 가능한 도구

get_issue_task

작업으로 사용할 GitHub 이슈 세부 정보를 가져옵니다.

입력 스키마:

{
  "type": "object",
  "properties": {
    "url": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "GitHub issue URL (https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/number)"
    }
  },
  "required": ["url"]
}

사용 예:

<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>github-issue</server_name>
<tool_name>get_issue_task</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
  "url": "https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123"
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>

응답 형식:

{
  "task": {
    "title": "Issue Title",
    "description": "Issue Description/Body",
    "source": "https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/123"
  }
}

특징

  • 공개 저장소에서 GitHub 이슈 세부 정보를 가져옵니다.

  • 공개 저장소에는 인증이 필요하지 않습니다.

  • 제목, 설명, 소스 URL을 포함한 구조화된 작업 데이터를 반환합니다.

  • 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP)과 호환

개발

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build the project
npm run build

# Run the server locally
npm run serve

# Format code
npm run format

# Run MCP inspector
npm run inspector

특허

MIT

작가

샘 맥레오드( https://smcleod.net )

Available Tools

1 tool
get_issue_taskC

Fetch GitHub issue details to use as a task

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesGitHub issue URL (https://github.com/owner/repo/issues/number)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Fetch' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'as a task' entails. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'GitHub issue details' includes, how the data is returned, or what 'as a task' means operationally. For a tool with no structured support, more descriptive context is needed to be fully 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 the parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('GitHub issue details'), making the purpose understandable. It adds context about using the fetched data 'as a task', which provides additional intent. However, with no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 or any prerequisites. It mentions using the fetched details 'as a task', which hints at a potential use case but doesn't offer explicit when/when-not instructions or context for selection.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedget_issue_task
Deploy Server
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

TDQS

B3/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as fetching GitHub issue details for task usage.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'get_issue_task' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, using snake_case. Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations to assess.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a server named 'MCP GitHub Issue Server', as this suggests a broader scope for managing GitHub issues. Typically, such a server would include multiple tools for operations like creating, updating, listing, or closing issues, making this set feel incomplete and thin.

Completeness1/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for the apparent domain of GitHub issue management. It only provides a 'get' operation, lacking essential CRUD/lifecycle coverage such as create, update, delete, list, or search, which will likely cause agent failures in handling issue-related tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches