deltaprobe

List open pull requests

list_open_prs

Read-only

List open pull requests in a GitHub repository, ordered by recent updates, to help identify which PR to review next.

Instructions

List open pull requests in a GitHub repository, most recently updated first. Use this to find which PR to review.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "list_open_prs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name, e.g. 'next.js'
`limit`	No	Maximum number of PRs to return (1-100)
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or org), e.g. 'vercel'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and reach are covered. The description adds the useful ordering guarantee (most recently updated first) but says nothing about truncation, pagination, or how many results to expect when the limit is hit, which matters for a listing tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the resource/scope and ordering front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only discovery tool with full schema coverage and clear safety annotations, this is nearly complete; an agent knows what it returns conceptually (open PRs, newest first) and how to call it. The only gap is that there is no output schema, so result shape remains unspecified.

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 owner, repo, and limit are fully documented in the schema with examples and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 and resource ('List open pull requests in a GitHub repository') plus a deterministic ordering ('most recently updated first'), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not name any sibling tool, so differentiation from get_pr_diff or check_pr_risk is only implied by the final sentence.

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?

'Use this to find which PR to review' gives a clear situational trigger and positions the tool as the discovery step before deeper per-PR tools. It offers no exclusions or explicit alternative naming, so it falls short of a full when/when-not specification.

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

Deploy Server