Skip to main content
Glama
agencian1

mcp-runrunit

by agencian1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

runrunit_get_pr_template

Fetch the project's pull request template before opening a PR, using optional fields to auto-fill title and body sections so submissions follow the standard.

Instructions

Returns the pull request title format and body from .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md. Use before gh pr create or when opening PRs manually so the description follows the project standard. Optional fields fill the template (change_type, description, task_id, type, title_description, include_visual_evidence, references).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoConventional type for the PR title (e.g. feat, fix, docs).
task_idNoTask id for the PR title (e.g. task0123).
referencesNoOptional links for the Referências section.
change_typeNoMarks the corresponding checkbox in the template body.
descriptionNoFills the Descrição section.
project_rootNoOptional absolute path to the repo root containing .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md. If omitted, resolves from cwd or the mcp-runrunit package.
title_descriptionNoShort description for the PR title.
include_visual_evidenceNoWhen false, omits the Evidências Visuais section. Default true when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that optional fields fill the template and that the tool returns the title format and body, but it does not disclose behavior for missing template files, path resolution failures, or whether any side effects occur. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a concise list of the optional fields. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description explains what is returned and how optional parameters affect the template. It could mention error behavior or the exact output shape, but for a template-fetching tool the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds a general statement that optional fields fill the template, but it does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the pull request title format and body from a specific file, .github/PULL_REQUEST_TEMPLATE.md. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource, and the purpose is immediately distinguishable from the sibling task-management tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit usage context: use before gh pr create or when opening PRs manually, so the description follows the project standard. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but given the sibling list contains no similar PR-template tools, this level of guidance is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools