Attach the fix PR to its issue via the FIXES edge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | ||
| pr_url | Yes | The actual GitHub URL of the PR that fixes this issue (from gh pr create). | |
| pr_number | Yes | The PR's own number (gh pr create prints it) — the PullRequest node identity. | |
| repo_name | Yes | Repository name. | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| issue_number | Yes | The GitHub issue number the PR fixes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / issue_number / descriptionPrevious value: -"GitHub issue number."New value: +"The GitHub issue number the PR fixes."Input schema / properties / pr_numberAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The PR's own number (gh pr create prints it) — the PullRequest node identity.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "pr_url",
- "repo_name",
- "issue_number"
-]New value: +[
+ "pr_url",
+ "pr_number",
+ "repo_name",
+ "issue_number"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action ('attach') but does not explain whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., edge creation, node updates), permissions required, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the core action. It is not verbose, but it achieves conciseness at the expense of omitting important context. It earns its place but could benefit from slight expansion.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe return values, prerequisites (e.g., existence of PR/issue nodes), whether this is part of a workflow, or any constraints. The agent lacks enough context to use this tool reliably in a complex scenario.
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?
The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the input schema already provides. Schema description coverage is 67%, with npub and dpop_token undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not clarify the roles of these parameters or their relationships, requiring the agent to infer meaning from names alone.
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 action ('Attach the fix PR to its issue') and specifies the mechanism ('via the FIXES edge'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and among sibling tools like cypher_link_issue_to_capability, it uniquely identifies this tool's role by mentioning 'fix PR' and 'FIXES edge', distinguishing it effectively.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cypher_upsert_pull_request or cypher_link_issue_to_capability. While the use case is implied (linking a fix PR to its issue), there is no explicit context, exclusions, or comparison to other linking tools, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
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.
The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.
112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.
Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.