GitHub PR Reviewer MCP

github_pr_files

Retrieves the list of files changed in a GitHub Pull Request to facilitate code review and change tracking.

Instructions

GitHub Pull Request'te değiştirilen dosyaların listesini getirir

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": {
      "pr_url": "<pr_url>"
    },
    "name": "github_pr_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pr_url`	Yes	GitHub Pull Request URL'i

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 burden. The description only states the basic action (fetching a list) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response format details, or whether it includes file paths, statuses, or other metadata. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or unnecessary phrasing, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description sufficiently states the return type (a list of files), which is the main expected output. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the list includes only file names or additional details, but given the simplicity, the description is mostly adequate.

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% (pr_url is fully described as the GitHub Pull Request URL). The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: it fetches the list of files changed in a GitHub Pull Request. The verb 'getirir' (fetches) and the specific resource ('GitHub Pull Request'te değiştirilen dosyaların listesi') distinguish it from sibling tools like github_pr_review (review) and github_pr_diff (diff).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the description implies usage for retrieving the list of changed files, and the sibling names (review, diff) suggest different use cases, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided.

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

Deploy Server