GitHub MCP Server

github_get_pull_requests

Retrieve and filter a repository's pull requests by state, base branch, or head branch. Use it to review open, closed, or all PRs via the GitHub API.

Instructions

獲取 Pull Request 列表

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>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`base`	No	目標分支
`head`	No	源分支 (格式: user:ref-name)
`state`	No	Pull Request 狀態	open
`per_page`	No	每頁顯示數量
`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

C2.6/5.0

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 discloses almost nothing. It implies a read/list operation but says nothing about pagination, default result limits (per_page=20), or result ordering, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

Five parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema mean the description should explain filtering and result behavior; it does none of that. Given the missing safety and pagination context, it is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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%, so all five parameters (repository, base, head, state, per_page) are already documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a clear verb+resource: '獲取 Pull Request 列表' (get Pull Request list). However, it does not distinguish this list endpoint from the sibling github_get_pull_request (single) or github_get_pr_files, so an agent must rely on the name alone to separate them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, no prerequisites. The description offers no context on when to call this versus github_get_pull_request or github_get_pr_comments.

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