GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_view

Read-only

Retrieve a single GitFlic issue by project and local ID, with options to limit returned fields or request the full raw response.

Instructions

Get one issue by localId.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_issue_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the operation itself: it does not mention that responses are slimmed by default, nor how the raw/fields toggles change what comes back, nor any auth or rate-limit context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing needs trimming. The terseness is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity one, so it scores well here on structure alone.

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?

With four parameters, half undocumented, and no output schema, the definition should explain the project/id pairing and what the default slim response contains. As written, an agent can guess the call but cannot predict the shape of the result or the meaning of the required project value.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%: raw and fields are documented in the schema, but id and project have no descriptions anywhere. The description's only contribution is implying that id is a local (project-scoped) identifier, and it says nothing about what project expects (slug, key, or numeric id), so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one issue"), and the singular "one issue" implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool gitflic_issue_list. It never names that alternative explicitly, and the term "localId" does not match the schema's "id" parameter name, which forces the agent to reconcile the two.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over gitflic_issue_list or how it relates to the edit/close siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server