GitHub MCP Server

github_get_pr_files

Fetch the files changed in a GitHub pull request using the repository (owner/repo) and pull number. Use it to review diffs and inspect modifications before merging.

Instructions

獲取 Pull Request 的文件變更

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "pullNumber": "<pullNumber>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_pr_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pullNumber`	Yes	Pull Request 編號
`repository`	Yes	倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether patch/diff content is included. For a tool that fetches potentially large file-diff payloads from a remote API, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral context rather than being a deliberate trade-off.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it provides none about the return shape (file list, patches, pagination) or usage context. For a two-parameter read tool this is under-specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both repository (owner/repo format) and pullNumber documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (獲取/get) and resource (Pull Request 的文件變更/file changes), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like github_get_pull_request or github_get_file_content, which an agent might reasonably confuse for the same data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_file_content or github_get_pull_request. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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