Skip to main content
Glama

Github_private

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Gh List Pulls

gh_list_pulls
Read-onlyIdempotent

List pull requests in a repository. Specify owner and repo name (e.g., owner='octocat', repo='Hello-World'). Returns titles, numbers, status, reviewers, and merge state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner
stateNoFilter: open, closed, all (default: open)
per_pageNoResults per page (max 100)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of items returned.
itemsYes

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": "Number of items returned.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "base": {
+            "properties": {
+              "ref": {
+                "description": "Base branch name",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "sha": {
+                "description": "Base commit SHA",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "body": {
+            "description": "Pull request description",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "ISO timestamp of creation",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "head": {
+            "properties": {
+              "ref": {
+                "description": "Branch name",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "sha": {
+                "description": "Commit SHA",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "html_url": {
+            "description": "Pull request web URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Pull request ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "mergeable": {
+            "description": "Whether PR can be merged",
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "merged": {
+            "description": "Whether PR is merged",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "number": {
+            "description": "Pull request number",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "description": "Pull request state (open or closed)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Pull request title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "description": "ISO timestamp of last update",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "user": {
+            "properties": {
+              "id": {
+                "description": "User ID",
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "login": {
+                "description": "User login",
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "owner": "octocat",
+    "repo": "Hello-World",
+    "state": "open"
+  },
+  {
+    "owner": "octocat",
+    "per_page": 30,
+    "repo": "Hello-World",
+    "state": "all"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (titles, numbers, status, reviewers, merge state) and emphasizing the need to supply owner/repo, which goes beyond the annotated safety profile.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action, include a practical example, and summarize return fields. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a rich output schema and annotations, and the description complements them by clarifying the returned data and parameter usage. It is fully adequate for this straightforward list operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds an example and reinforces the owner/repo requirement, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond the schema.

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 the verb and resource: 'List pull requests in a repository.' It specifies the necessary owner and repo parameters and lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gh_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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing PRs in a repo) with an explicit example of parameters. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the usage is unambiguous.

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

All Github_private 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among many tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve query-answer purposes with subtle differences, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar arbitrage/mispricing territory. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence clearly overlap, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a gh_ prefix (gh_get_file, gh_get_repo, etc.), others are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, bet_research), and a few are plain verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The mixed conventions and varied verb/noun styles make the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the count is high but still within a usable range. However, the server is named 'Github_private' yet includes only 7 GitHub-specific tools and 30+ unrelated tools (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, etc.). This suggests the server aggregates multiple unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated for its apparent GitHub purpose.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name, the GitHub tool surface is severely incomplete: there are no create/update/delete operations for repos, no PR creation or merging, no issue comments, no branches, and no search across repos. The Pipeworx side is fairly comprehensive, but the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set leaves major gaps for expected GitHub workflows.

Resources