GitHub MCP Server

github_get_pr

Retrieve detailed information about a pull request, including changed files, commits, and review status, to understand code changes.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific pull request including files changed, commits, and review 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>",
      "pull_number": "<pull_number>"
    },
    "name": "github_get_pr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (organization or username)
`pull_number`	Yes	Pull request number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 burden. It communicates that the operation is a read-style retrieval and indicates the kind of data returned, but it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the files/commits lists are paginated.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key content areas. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a simple get-by-identifier tool with self-explanatory required parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what will be returned. It lacks some behavioral context such as auth requirements and pagination, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, with owner, repo, and pull_number all adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the operation: getting detailed information about one specific pull request. It lists concrete result areas (files changed, commits, review status) and is distinct from the sibling github_list_prs, which is about listing PRs.

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 implies when to use it: when you need details about a known pull request rather than a list of PRs. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like github_list_prs or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server