Retrieve a GitHub pull request's diff stats—commits, changed files, additions, deletions, and per-file breakdown (first 50 files)—to assess code changes.
Get one pull request with diff stats: commits, changed files, additions, deletions and a per-file breakdown (first 50 files).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner, e.g. octocat | |
| number | Yes | Issue or pull request number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by disclosing the return contents and the truncation limit of the first 50 files in the per-file breakdown, which the agent could not learn from annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb and resource come first, followed by the returned fields and the file cap. Nothing is redundant or restated from the title or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well, listing the stats and the 50-file truncation. The only gap is what happens past 50 files, i.e. whether pagination or a separate call is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so owner, repo and number are already documented with patterns and an example. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for any parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("one pull request") and enumerates the payload (commits, changed files, additions, deletions, per-file breakdown). The word "one" implicitly distinguishes it from list_pull_requests, though no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-PR detail fetch versus the list tool. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer search_issues or get_issue, and no prerequisites such as authentication or private-repo access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.