github-repo-mcp-server

list_issues

List GitHub issues in a repository, filterable by state, label, or assignee to locate relevant tasks.

Instructions

List issues in a repo, filterable by state, label, and assignee.

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": "list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`limit`	No
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or org)
`state`	No		open
`labels`	No	Comma-separated label names to filter by
`assignee`	No	GitHub username to filter by assignee

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It calls out read-only behavior with 'List' and mentions filters, but it does not disclose pagination, default limit, or response format. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single sentence with a clear verb-object structure, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The description is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity read-only list tool. The schema documents parameters and required fields, and although the return format and pagination are not mentioned, these are minor gaps for this operation type.

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 description coverage is 67%. The description adds semantic grouping by naming state, label, and assignee as filters, but it does not clarify the 'limit' parameter or required owner/repo beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource ('List issues in a repo') and names the key filters (state, label, assignee), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_issue (single issue) and list_pull_requests (pull requests).

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 description implies usage for listing issues in a repo but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. No direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server