Look up one GitHub issue or PR by repo + number. Celestia repos only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repo, e.g. "celestiaorg/celestia-app" or shorthand "celestia-app". | |
| number | Yes | Issue or PR number. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a repo scope and implies read-only behavior via 'Look up'; it does not disclose auth/visibility behavior, error handling for invalid or non-Celestia repos, or what status values are returned.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the action and lookup key are front-loaded. The scope restriction is placed in a compact second sentence.
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?
For a simple two-parameter getter with a fully documented schema, the description is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe the return payload or when to prefer a sibling, but the tool name and 'status' imply the output, leaving only minor gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with examples. The description adds only the 'Celestia repos only' constraint, not new parameter-level meaning, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Look up'), names the resource ('one GitHub issue or PR'), and gives the lookup key ('repo + number'). It also adds a scope restriction ('Celestia repos only') that helps distinguish it from broader search or discussion tools in the sibling list.
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?
The description gives clear usage context: call this when you have a known repo and issue/PR number and need the issue's status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the exact-match framing separates it from search_github_issues and get_github_discussion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct content types and actions, and descriptions carefully carve out boundaries (e.g. get_network_state vs get_network_stats, get_discussion vs get_github_discussion). However, the overlapping get_/find_/search_ families plus the very similar network_state/network_stats names leave some edge cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.
The dominant convention is verb_noun (find_*, get_*, list_*, search_*), and get/list/find roughly map to id-based retrieval, browsing, and discovery. Deviations like learning_path, ecosystem_dependency_graph, and semantic_search break the pattern, and the get_ vs find_ vs search_ boundaries are not perfectly predictable.
43 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server; even though the Celestia knowledge domain is broad, the surface is heavy and will increase selection cost. Most tools are individually useful, but the set would benefit from consolidation, e.g. merging release tools or search variants.
The server covers an unusually broad range of content types—CIPs, docs, forum, GitHub issues/discussions, releases, videos, whitepapers, ecosystem, and network state—with list/get/search access for most. Minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated blog retrieval and get_issue_status only returning status rather than full issue body, but core knowledge workflows have no dead ends.