lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

github_list_check_suites

Read-onlyIdempotent

List GitHub check suites for a project using the governed connector account. Retrieve CI check details to monitor pull request status.

Instructions

Github connector operation list_check_suites (platform tool github.list_check_suites).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some useful context by stating the tool routes only through the governed connector authority and that the effect must be 'read' and is verified by Spring. This goes slightly beyond annotations, though it does not describe operational behavior like pagination, error cases, or authentication specifics.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the tool identity and routing constraint, which is structurally fine. However, several lines are boilerplate or redundant with the schema, and the 'approval_ref' note about resuming a write feels irrelevant for a read-only tool. It is compact but not information-dense.

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?

Even with annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain what check suites are, what the 'arguments' JSON should contain, or how this operation relates to check runs and workflow runs. An agent cannot reliably select or call this tool based on the provided context alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only lists parameter names with no explanation. The critical 'arguments' parameter is described only as a 'JSON string of arguments' without any example, structure, or GitHub operation-specific fields, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description says it is a 'Github connector operation `list_check_suites`' and names the platform tool, but it never states what the operation actually does: list check suites for a repository or commit. This is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no plain-language purpose or differentiation from sibling tools like github_list_check_runs.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention github_list_check_runs, github_get_check_run, or any selection criteria such as 'use this to inspect CI check suites for a commit.' The only usage-related sentence concerns routing authority, not tool selection.

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

Deploy Server