Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

get_design_pull_request

Read-only

Fetch a design pull request's full details by ID to review proposed changes and manage design version history.

Instructions

Fetch one pull request's full detail by id.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: Pull requests on your designs you keep · Pro: Pull requests on every design · Business: ✓ · Enterprise: ✓.

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": {
      "pr_id": "<pr_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_design_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_idYesPull request id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / pr_id / description
      Added value: +"Pull request id."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description does add entitlement context — free tier only covers pull requests on designs you keep, Pro covers all designs — which is genuinely useful for anticipating empty or denied results, but the "Free door, tiered answer" phrasing is compressed to the point of ambiguity and nothing is said about the response shape.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the entitlement caveat after it. The tier sentence uses checkmarks and jargon that read more like marketing copy than operational guidance, which costs a point.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose plus the access-tier constraint an agent could otherwise stumble on. It omits what 'full detail' contains and how missing or forbidden PR ids are surfaced, but no output schema exists and the tool's complexity is low.

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% and the single pr_id parameter is documented as "Pull request id." in the schema. The description's "by id" adds no format, encoding, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Fetch one pull request's full detail by id" gives a specific verb (fetch), resource (pull request), and scope (single, by id), which implicitly separates it from list_design_pull_requests. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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 'by id' framing implies this is a single-record lookup rather than a listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_design_pull_requests or review_design_pull_request, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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