GitHub PR Review MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

collect_pr_feedback

Centralize all feedback from a GitHub pull request by retrieving review comments, issue comments, and summaries with repository and PR number.

Instructions

Collect PR review comments, issue comments, and review summaries for a PR.

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "pullNumber": "<pullNumber>"
    },
    "name": "collect_pr_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pullNumber`	Yes	Pull request number
`repository`	Yes	GitHub repository in owner/repo format
`includeResolvedReplies`	No	Include reply comments in the review comment list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only lists what is collected but omits important traits like read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or data format. The agent has insufficient information to anticipate behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It could be slightly more specific (e.g., mentioning GitHub), but it is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description does hint at the returned data types but does not specify structure, format, or whether the tool is read-only. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, providing no additional value.

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 action ('Collect') and the resource ('PR review comments, issue comments, and review summaries'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. The repository parameter clarifies the context (GitHub).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Since no sibling tools are listed, the lack of usage guidance is acceptable but still a gap.

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

collect_pr_feedbackB