File a bug or feature request against @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core when you hit a framework issue. Use when a builder, utility, context method, or config behaves contrary to the documented API — not for server-specific application bugs.
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
name: report-issue-framework
description: >
File a bug or feature request against @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core when you hit a framework issue. Use when a builder, utility, context method, or config behaves contrary to the documented API — not for server-specific application bugs.
metadata:
author: cyanheads
version: "1.14"
audience: external
type: workflow
When to Use
You've isolated a problem to @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core itself — not your server code, not a misconfiguration, not a missing peer dependency. Typical triggers:
createApp() or createWorkerHandler() fails on a valid config
Context properties (ctx.log, ctx.state, ctx.inputs, etc.) behave contrary to docs
A utility from /utils, /errors, /auth, /storage, /services returns wrong results or throws unexpectedly
Type exports are incorrect or missing (compile error on documented usage)
The definition linter (bun run lint:mcp) produces false positives or misses real violations
For general gh CLI workflows outside issue filing (PRs, workflows, API access), see the github-cli skill.
Before Filing
Confirm framework version — bun pm ls @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core or check node_modules/@cyanheads/mcp-ts-core/package.json
Check you're on latest — bun outdated @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core. If behind, update and retest before filing.
Isolate the issue — reproduce with a minimal handler or standalone script. Strip server-specific services, config, and dependencies. If the bug disappears when isolated, it's likely in your server code.
Search existing issues — don't file duplicates:
gh issue list -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core --search "your error message or keyword" --state all
# Assess a close match before commenting — is it already linked to a fix or referenced elsewhere?
gh issue view <number> -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core # body
gh issue view <number> -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core --comments # thread only — without a TTY it prints no body
gh api 'repos/cyanheads/mcp-ts-core/issues/<number>/timeline' --paginate \
--jq '.[] | select(.event=="cross-referenced") | .source.issue | "\(.repository.full_name)#\(.number) — \(.title)"'
For documentation- or contract-shaped requests, audit all three doc layers first — proposals to add reference docs, public-API conventions, attribute/event catalogs, or stability commitments often duplicate surface that already exists. Check src/ for behavior, docs/ for human-facing reference, and framework-skills/ for agent-facing reference. Skill files marked audience: external are the framework's public contract — treat them as authoritative when evaluating whether a documentation gap exists. Also verify the constants or types you'd reference aren't already exported from @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core or one of its subpaths.
Writing Well-Structured Issues
Good issues are terse and fact-dense. Budget: a bug reads in ~150 words, a feature in ~250, code and logs excluded. Every section past the form's required fields must earn its place — a section you could delete without changing the fix is noise. One or two sentences per bullet; if a bullet runs long, split it or cut it.
Cut what dilutes the signal. Mechanism walkthroughs (link the PR or doc instead), ceremonial framings ("This issue covers…"), conversation references ("as discussed", "per offline"), restated context the reader already has, and kitchen-sink Additional context blocks. If a paragraph isn't pulling weight, drop it.
Lead with specifics. Name the tool, function, module, or symptom. "Currently createApp() throws ConfigurationError when MCP_HTTP_PORT is set to 0" beats "There's a problem with the config." A reader should know what's broken or missing before the end of the first sentence.
Embed library/service links on first mention.[Hono](https://hono.dev/), [linkedom](https://github.com/WebReflection/linkedom). 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/pubmed-mcp-server#34). Bare #N only works for same-repo issues.
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.
Prefer Markdown tables for comparisons. When showing options, tiers, strategies, or tradeoffs — tables are the highest-density format for scanning N rows × M attributes.
Use Depends on: owner/repo#N to declare ordering explicitly when implementation is blocked on another issue landing first.
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
The repo has YAML form issue templates. Use --web to open the form in the browser (preferred when available), or pass --title + --body for non-interactive use.
Structure the --body to match the template's form fields. Description is two or three sentences; the reproduction is the minimal code and the observed output, nothing else. Add ### Additional context only when it changes the fix (a workaround, a related issue, the one log line that matters) — omitted by default.
gh issue create -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core \
--title "bug(scope): concise description" \
--label "bug" \
--assignee "@me" \
--body "$(cat <<'ISSUE'
### mcp-ts-core version
<installed version from node_modules/@cyanheads/mcp-ts-core/package.json — not the ^ range>
### Runtime
Bun
### Runtime version
<bun --version>
### Transport
stdio
### OS
macOS 15.x
### Description
Brief explanation of the bug — what you expected vs what happened.
### Reproduction
```ts
import { tool, z } from '@cyanheads/mcp-ts-core';
export const broken = tool('broken_example', {
description: 'Minimal repro.',
input: z.object({ id: z.string().describe('ID') }),
output: z.object({
name: z.string().describe('Name'),
extra: z.string().optional().describe('Optional field'),
}),
async handler(input, ctx) {
return { name: 'test' }; // omitting optional field causes validation error
},
});
```
### Actual behavior
```
Error: Output validation failed: ...
```
### Expected behavior
Omitting an optional output field should pass validation.
ISSUE
)"
For long output, write to a file and attach. 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 -100 > /tmp/mcp-error.log
# As part of a new issue (the log becomes the entire body — no template fields)
gh issue create -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core \
--title "bug(transport): stdio crashes on large payload" \
--label "bug" \
--assignee "@me" \
--body-file /tmp/mcp-error.log
# Or as a comment on an existing issue
gh issue comment <number> -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core --body-file /tmp/mcp-error.log
The first three headings are the Feature Request form's own fields, in its order — Use case and Proposed API are required by the form, so a body without them does not satisfy it. Out of scope is one or two lines. Nothing else by default: a Scope, Flow, Design / Tradeoffs, or Depends on block is added only when the reader cannot act without it, and each stays to a few lines.
gh issue create -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core \
--title "feat(scope): concise description" \
--label "enhancement" \
--assignee "@me" \
--body "$(cat <<'ISSUE'
### Use case
One or two sentences: who hits this gap in the framework and why it matters. Name the specific builder, utility, context method, or config field. Kept short on purpose — a field that invites a paragraph gets padded with background and skipped by the next reader.
Related: #N
### Proposed API
What you want the framework to do, then the API as a consumer would call it. Link external libraries on first mention: [lib name](https://github.com/owner/repo).
```ts
import { withRetry } from '@cyanheads/mcp-ts-core/utils';
const result = await withRetry(() => fetchExternal(url), {
maxAttempts: 3,
backoff: 'exponential',
});
```
### Alternatives considered
What you tried or evaluated instead, and why it didn't fit.
### Out of scope
- Adjacent work that belongs in a separate issue
ISSUE
)"
Following Up
# Check issue status, then its comment thread (--comments without a TTY prints no body)
gh issue view <number> -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core
gh issue view <number> -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core --comments
# Add context or respond to maintainer questions
gh issue comment <number> -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core --body "Additional context..."
# List your open issues
gh issue list -R cyanheads/mcp-ts-core --author @me
Checklist
Confirmed bug is in @cyanheads/mcp-ts-core, not server code
Running latest (or documented) framework version
Searched existing issues — no duplicate found
If documentation or contract enhancement: confirmed src/, docs/, framework-skills/, and public exports don't already cover the surface