GitHub connector: inconsistent repository parameter name causes misleading schema error
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 125k
- Forks
- 19.5k
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
What issue are you seeing?
The GitHub connector exposes inconsistent names for the same repository identifier across sibling tools.
For example, fetch_issue_comments requires repo_full_name, while many other GitHub tools (including create_issue) require repository_full_name. This makes a plausible model-generated call fail before reaching GitHub.
The resulting validation error also includes a workspace-admin message, even though the failure is only an input-field mismatch:
Parameters failed connector schema validation: repo_full_name [required]:
Missing required property (does not match constraints configured by your ChatGPT
workspace admin. If the issue persists, instruct the user to contact their
workspace admin.); repo_full_name [required]: Missing required property
What steps can reproduce the bug?
Call the GitHub connector using the naming convention exposed by many sibling tools:
{
"repository_full_name": "OWNER/REPO",
"issue_number": 123
}
Tool:
codex_apps.github.fetch_issue_comments
The call fails schema validation because repo_full_name is required.
Retry with:
{
"repo_full_name": "OWNER/REPO",
"issue_number": 123
}
The call succeeds.
What is the expected behavior?
Use one repository-field name consistently across GitHub connector tools, preferably repository_full_name, or accept both forms as compatibility aliases.
For a plain schema mismatch, the error should identify the unexpected/missing field without suggesting workspace-admin intervention.
Additional information
Observed with the OpenAI GitHub plugin version 0.1.8-2841cf9749ae.
This is not an authentication, repository-access, or workspace-policy failure: changing only the parameter name makes the same read-only request succeed.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start at the codex_apps.github.fetch_issue_comments schema and compare its repository field with the sibling create_issue tool described in the issue. Reproduce both parameter forms and inspect the connector validation path; done means the repository name is consistent or both aliases work, and a field mismatch no longer includes workspace-admin guidance.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- github, rust
- Domain
- api, backend
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 70/100