GitHub MCP Server

github_list_pull_requests

List pull requests in a repository with creator, labels, and optional comments and CI/CD status.

Instructions

List all pull requests in a repository with full details including creator, labels, and optionally comments and pipeline status

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": "github_list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)
`state`	No	State of pull requests to fetch (default: all)	all
`include_checks`	No	Include CI/CD check runs and status for each PR
`include_comments`	No	Include all comments for each PR (may slow down the request)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says what is listed. It does not disclose pagination, response structure, rate limits, or the performance cost of including comments (the 'may slow down' caveat appears in schema, not here).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core function and optional features with no wasted words. Ideal conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a list operation: it names the resource, scope, and options. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, and does not mention when to prefer sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the GitHub API.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description's mention of 'optionally comments and pipeline status' maps to include_comments and include_checks, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists all pull requests in a repository, with details like creator, labels, and optional comments/checks. This explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like github_get_pr_details (single PR) and github_get_pr_comments/checks.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist for comments and checks, but the description does not mention them or clarify when to use the dedicated tools instead of this list endpoint.

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

Deploy Server