Find GitHub issues by search terms, labels, or repo scope to identify what needs attention.
Search issues with GitHub search syntax. The configured scope is added automatically unless repos is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search terms, e.g. "season overlap" or "label:bug" | |
| repos | No | Override the configured scope | |
| state | No | Default open |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope handling but omits return format, pagination, authentication needs, or rate limits—important behavioral context for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a crucial scope caveat. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what results look like, how defaults apply, or provide sufficient usage context for an agent to call it correctly beyond basic syntax.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context: it explains that 'repos' overrides the configured scope, and 'GitHub search syntax' enriches the query parameter beyond schema examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches issues using GitHub search syntax, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_issue or linked_issues, but the search intent is evident and distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about automatic scope addition explains behavior but does not help an agent decide between search_issues, get_issue, or linked_issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.