@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

github_list_pull_requests

List and filter pull requests for a repository by state, base branch, head, and pagination. Access GitHub API PR data with configurable parameters.

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": "github_list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`base`	No	Filter by base branch
`head`	No	Filter by head user or branch (user:ref-name)
`page`	No	Page number
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner username
`state`	No	PR state filter
`per_page`	No	Results per page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the basic function. It does not disclose default state filtering (open/closed/all), pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with empty results, so the agent is left without critical transparency.

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 clear and concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It omits details on default behavior, pagination, sorting, and edge cases, making it inadequate for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptive text for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any extra semantics or constraints 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 action ('List') and the resource ('pull requests for a repository'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources like commits, issues, repositories, or branches.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filters, defaults, or contrast with analogous tools such as github_get_pull_request or github_list_issues, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server