GitHub MCP Server

list_prs

List pull requests for a GitHub repository, optionally filtered by open, closed, or all states.

Instructions

List pull requests for a repository

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": "list_prs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (username or org)
`state`	No	Filter by state: open, closed, or all	open

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention return format, pagination, ordering, or default state. The description adds little beyond the tool name and schema.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

The description is minimal and does not explain return values, pagination, or any behavior beyond listing. While the schema covers parameters well, the absence of output schema and annotations leaves room for more context. However, for a simple list tool with well-defined parameters, this is adequate but not 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (owner, repo, state) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 (List) and the resource (pull requests) for a repository. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pr (single PR), create_pr, comment_on_pr, and merge_pr, which have different purposes. The verb+resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of, for example, 'use get_pr to retrieve details of a single PR' or 'use create_pr to open a new PR'. The description simply states what it does without context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server