report-issue-local

When to Use

The bug is in this server's code, not in @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core. Typical triggers:

• A tool handler returns wrong results or throws on valid input
• A service integration (external API, database, third-party SDK) fails or misbehaves
• Server-specific config (server-config.ts) rejects valid env vars or has wrong defaults
• Resource handlers return stale, incomplete, or incorrect data
• Domain logic errors — wrong calculations, missing edge cases, bad state transitions
• Missing or incorrect .describe() on schema fields causing poor LLM tool use

If the issue is in the framework itself (builders, Context, utilities, type exports, linter), use report-issue-framework instead.

For general gh CLI workflows outside issue filing (PRs, workflows, API access), see the github-cli skill.

Before Filing

1. Identify the repo:

gh repo view --json nameWithOwner -q '.nameWithOwner'

2. Search existing issues — if a close match exists (same symptom, different tool; same tool, different symptom; closed issue that might cover the new case), add a comment on that issue instead of filing a new one — unless the symptom or scope is distinct enough to warrant separate tracking:

gh issue list --search "your error message or keyword"

3. Reproduce the issue — confirm it's reproducible. Note the exact input, transport mode, and any relevant env vars.

4. Check logs — review ctx.log output and any framework telemetry for clues. If running HTTP, check the response body for structured error details.

Writing Well-Structured Issues

Good issues are scannable, concrete, and self-contained — terse and fact-dense. Default to one or two sentences per bullet; if a bullet runs long, split it or cut it. These patterns apply to both bugs and features — the guidance targets any prose block (Description, Additional context, feature proposals).

• Lead with specifics. Name the tool, service, resource, or symptom. "Currently search_docs returns an empty array for queries containing &" beats "Search is broken." A reader should know what's wrong before the end of the first sentence.
• Embed library/service links on first mention. [Hono](https://hono.dev/), [Supabase](https://supabase.com/). Link to the canonical repo or homepage so readers can verify the dependency and reach docs in one click.
• Use owner/repo#N for cross-repo issue references. GitHub auto-renders them as linked references (e.g. cyanheads/mcp-ts-core#46). Bare #N only works for same-repo issues — useful when the bug depends on or relates to a framework issue.
• Add a Related: #N line near the top when the issue grows from prior context (discussions, other issues, PRs). Makes provenance clickable.
• Cite cross-references once per body. Link an issue/PR in Related:, the description, or Additional context — not all three. The reader sees them all; redundant linking dilutes signal.
• Lead design sections with a philosophy sentence. Bold a short principle before the tradeoff details — e.g. "Philosophy: return best-effort data, don't fail the tool call on parsing edge cases." Establishes the lens for the rest of the section.
• Prefer Markdown tables for comparisons. When showing options, data sources, strategies, or tradeoffs — tables are the highest-density format for scanning N rows × M attributes.
• Separate ### Scope from ### Out of scope. The latter is as important as the former — it pre-empts scope-creep debates in comments and signals you've thought about the boundaries.
• Use Depends on: owner/repo#N to declare ordering explicitly when implementation is blocked on an upstream framework change or another issue landing first.
• Cut what dilutes the signal. Mechanism walkthroughs (link the PR or doc instead), ceremonial framings ("This issue covers…"), conversation references ("as discussed", "per offline"), and kitchen-sink Additional context blocks. If a paragraph isn't pulling weight, drop it.
• Skip collaborator-framing sign-offs. Lines like "Happy to open a PR", "let me know if you'd like", "willing to contribute", "if that's the preferred flow" read as noise. A PR link beats an offer; if you're the maintainer filing against your own repo, the offer is redundant. End the body at the last substantive point.

Redact Before Posting

GitHub issues are public. Do not include secrets, credentials, API keys, or tokens. Redact sensitive values from env vars, headers, and logs before submitting. Replace with obvious placeholders: REDACTED, sk-...REDACTED. Do not rely on partial masking — partial keys can still be exploited.

Filing a Bug

This repo includes YAML form issue templates (scaffolded from the framework). Use --web to open the form in the browser (preferred when available), or pass --title + --body for non-interactive use.

Browser (interactive)

gh issue create --template "Bug Report" --web

CLI (non-interactive)

Structure the --body to match the template's form fields:

gh issue create \
  --title "bug(tool_name): concise description" \
  --label "bug" \
  --assignee "@me" \
  --body "$(cat <<'ISSUE'
### Server version

0.1.0

### mcp-ts-core version

0.1.29

### Runtime

Bun

### Runtime version

Bun 1.3.x

### Transport

stdio

### Description

What happened and what you expected instead.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Call `tool_name` with input: `{ "key": "value" }`
2. Observe error / wrong output

### Actual behavior

```
Error or incorrect output here
```

### Expected behavior

What should have happened.

### Additional context

Relevant `ctx.log` output, stack traces, or telemetry spans.
ISSUE
)"

Title conventions

Format: type(scope): description

• type: bug, feat, docs, chore
• scope: tool name, service name, resource name, config, auth, or domain area

Examples:

• bug(search_docs): returns empty results for queries with special characters
• feat(analytics): add date range filter to usage_report tool
• docs(setup): .env.example missing REDIS_URL

Labels

Every issue needs exactly one primary label. Stack secondary labels on top when applicable.

Primary (required — pick one):

Label	When
bug	Something broken
enhancement	New feature or improvement
documentation	Documentation is wrong, missing, or misleading

Secondary (optional — stack on top of primary):

Label	When
regression	Worked before, broken after a change
performance	Memory, CPU, latency, or resource usage
security	Vulnerability, CVE, or hardening work
breaking-change	Change will break public API; requires a major bump
surplus-token-idea	Worth exploring when token budget allows

Combine labels: --label "bug" --label "regression".

Secondary labels are not GitHub defaults — if gh issue create --label "regression" fails with label not found, create it once:

gh label create regression --color e99695 --description "Worked before, broken after a change"
gh label create performance --color 5319e7 --description "Memory, CPU, latency, or resource usage"
gh label create security --color b60205 --description "Vulnerability, CVE, or hardening work"
gh label create breaking-change --color d93f0b --description "Change will break public API; requires a major bump"
gh label create surplus-token-idea --color FF10F0 --description "Worth exploring when token budget allows"

Attaching logs or large output

Note: --body-file replaces the entire body — it does not supplement a --body flag. For structured bugs with logs, either embed the log content in the Additional context section of a normal --body, or file the issue first and add the log as a comment:

bun run rebuild && bun run start:stdio 2>&1 | head -200 > /tmp/server-error.log

# As part of a new issue (the log becomes the entire body — no template fields)
gh issue create \
  --title "bug(ingest): crashes on large payload" \
  --label "bug" \
  --assignee "@me" \
  --body-file /tmp/server-error.log

# Or as a comment on an existing issue (preferred — keeps the structured body intact)
gh issue comment <number> --body-file /tmp/server-error.log

Filing a Feature Request

Browser (interactive)

gh issue create --template "Feature Request" --web

CLI (non-interactive)

Template below demonstrates the richer structure. Omit sections you don't need — simple requests don't require Flow / Design / Dependencies blocks.

gh issue create \
  --title "feat(scope): concise description" \
  --label "enhancement" \
  --assignee "@me" \
  --body "$(cat <<'ISSUE'
Concrete statement of what's currently missing or broken. Name the specific tool, service, resource, or domain area. Two or three sentences — the reader should know the gap before the end of the paragraph.

Related: #N

## Proposal

What you want the server to do, in one paragraph. Link external libraries or services on first mention: [lib name](https://github.com/owner/repo). Include a short justification — what this gives users that they don't have today.

### Proposed behavior

Describe the new behavior or surface. For tool/resource changes, show example input/output or the new schema fields:

```ts
// Example: new input field or output shape
```

### Flow (optional)

Ordered steps — e.g. `request → lookup → fallback → respond`. Useful when the change spans multiple phases or fallbacks.

### Design / Tradeoffs (optional)

Philosophy: **one-line principle in bold.**

| Option | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|:---|:---|:---|
| A | ... | ... |
| B | ... | ... |

### Scope

- Files or modules touched
- New env vars, config keys, or service integrations
- New or modified tools / resources / prompts

### Out of scope

- What we're deliberately not doing
- Adjacent work that belongs in a separate issue

### Dependencies (optional)

- Depends on: cyanheads/mcp-ts-core#N (upstream framework change)
- Depends on: owner/repo#N (other server work)

### Alternatives considered

What you tried or evaluated instead, and why it didn't fit.
ISSUE
)"

Triage: Framework vs Server

Not sure where the bug lives? Quick checks:

Signal	Likely framework	Likely server
Error originates in node_modules/@cyanheads/mcp-ts-core/	Yes
Error in src/mcp-server/tools/ or src/services/		Yes
Same bug reproduces with a bare tool() definition (no services)	Yes
Bug disappears when you swap in a dummy handler		Yes
ctx.state, ctx.log, ctx.elicit behave wrong on any tool	Yes
Only one specific tool/resource is affected		Yes

When genuinely ambiguous, file against this server's repo and note that it might be a framework issue. The maintainer can transfer it upstream.

Following Up

# View issue details
gh issue view <number>

# Add context
gh issue comment <number> --body "Additional findings..."

# List your open issues
gh issue list --author @me

# Close if resolved
gh issue close <number> --reason completed --comment "Fixed in <commit or PR>"

Checklist

• Confirmed bug is in server code, not the framework
• Searched existing issues — no duplicate found; close matches commented instead of duplicated
• All secrets, credentials, and tokens redacted
• Title follows type(scope): description format
• Primary label assigned (bug / enhancement / documentation)
• If bug: version, runtime, repro steps, actual vs expected behavior included
• If feature: Proposal and Scope sections present; Out of scope defined