github-repo-mcp-server

get_issue

Fetch complete details and comment thread for a specific GitHub issue by providing its repository owner, name, and issue number.

Instructions

Get full detail for one issue, including its comment thread.

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>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or org)
`issue_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires any specific permissions, or has no side effects. It only describes the return content (full detail, comment thread), which does not cover safety or authorization aspects.

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 of 13 words. It avoids redundancy and directly conveys the tool's purpose without filler, scoring high on conciseness.

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?

For a simple read tool with three obvious parameters, the description provides the essential purpose and mentions the comment thread as a key return component. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not detail the full return structure or any error/rate-limit behavior, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 describes owner and repo (67% coverage), but the description adds no additional meaning for any parameter. The missing issue_number description is somewhat inferable from the name, and the tool description's 'one issue' hints at its role, but there is no explicit compensation for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'one issue', specifying that it retrieves full detail including the comment thread. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues (which lists issues) and get_pull_request (which gets a pull request).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for one issue' implies this is for retrieving a single issue rather than listing multiple, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_issues or exclusions for when not to use it. Usage context is present but only implied.

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

Deploy Server