Retrieve a pull request's checklist tasks, excluding comments, to review pending action items clearly.
List a pull request's checklist tasks (what PullRequestSchema.task_count counts) - distinct from comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| repoSlug | Yes | Repository slug, e.g. 'my-repo' | |
| workspace | No | Omit to use the configured default workspace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by linking to task_count, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or ordering. It is not contradictory, and the annotations lower the burden, but the description could still add more behavioral detail.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It leads with the verb and resource, adds a clarifying parenthetical, and concludes with a useful distinction. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies what is returned (checklist tasks) and distinguishes from comments. It does not mention pagination or response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor gap.
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 67%, which is above the 50% threshold, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain that 'id' refers to the pull request ID, though the context implies it). It does not compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a pull request's checklist tasks'), and clarifies that these tasks are what PullRequestSchema.task_count counts. It also explicitly distinguishes from comments, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like bitbucket_pull_request_comment_list.
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?
The description provides a contextual clue by stating the tool is 'distinct from comments,' implying it should not be used when comments are needed. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance beyond that single contrast. The intent is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.