Skip to main content
Glama

Github

by io.github.pipeworx-io

List Repo Issues

list_repo_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

List issues for a GitHub repository by owner and repo name; filters pull requests out automatically. Returns issue number, title, state, labels, author, comment count, URL, and timestamps. Defaults to open issues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner (user or org)
stateNoFilter by issue state: open, closed, or all (default: open)
per_pageNoNumber of issues to return (default 10, max 30)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
countYesTotal number of issues returned
ownerYesRepository owner
stateYesIssue state filter (open/closed/all)
issuesYesList of issues

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Total number of issues returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "description": "List of issues",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "author": {
+            "description": "Issue author login",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "comments": {
+            "description": "Number of comments",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "Issue creation timestamp",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "labels": {
+            "description": "Issue labels",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "number": {
+            "description": "Issue number",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "description": "Issue state (open/closed)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Issue title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "description": "Last update timestamp",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "description": "Issue URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "number",
+          "title",
+          "state",
+          "labels",
+          "author",
+          "comments",
+          "url",
+          "created_at",
+          "updated_at"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "owner": {
+      "description": "Repository owner",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "repo": {
+      "description": "Repository name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "description": "Issue state filter (open/closed/all)",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "owner",
+    "repo",
+    "state",
+    "count",
+    "issues"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "owner": "facebook",
+    "repo": "react",
+    "state": "open"
+  },
+  {
+    "owner": "kubernetes",
+    "per_page": 25,
+    "repo": "kubernetes",
+    "state": "all"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it states that pull requests are filtered out automatically and that the default state is 'open'. These are useful details not present in the annotations, so the description adds value without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with front-loaded information. It states the purpose first, then adds the PR filter and return fields, and finally the default. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has a simple operation with clear scope, defaults, and return fields listed. The schema handles parameter boundaries, and the description covers the behavioral nuance (PR filtering). Some might argue that pagination or sorting isn't mentioned, but per_page is already in the schema and the default open state is stated. This is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, including descriptions for state and per_page. The description reinforces owner/repo naming and the default state, but it doesn't add any new semantics or clarify parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('issues for a GitHub repository'), and the key scoping parameters (owner and repo name). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly noting that pull requests are filtered out automatically, which is a unique behavioral detail beyond a generic 'list issues'.

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 when to use the tool: when you need issues for a specific repo, with a default to open issues. It mentions the repository scoping (owner/repo) and the automatic PR filtering, which guide usage. However, no explicit alternatives are named, and there is no 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 4.

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

All Github toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. get_repo vs. validate_claim), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, an agent can generally distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (search_repos, get_user), others are noun_verb (entity_profile), and many are compound descriptor phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This mixed convention makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Github', especially since many tools (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) are unrelated to GitHub functionality. The count would be appropriate for a broader 'Pipeworx' server but not for a focused GitHub server.

Completeness2/5

The GitHub-relevant tools are limited to read-only operations (get_repo, list_commits, etc.), lacking essential actions like creating/updating repos, issues, or pull requests. The inclusion of numerous non-GitHub tools does not compensate for these gaps.

Resources