Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_design_pull_requests

Read-only

List proposed design changes and filter them by status or design to review approvals, requested changes, merges, or closures.

Instructions

List proposed design changes, optionally filtered.

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

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_design_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoOptional status filter (open / approved / changes_requested / merged / rejected / closed).
design_idNoOptional design filter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Added value: +"Optional design filter."
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"Optional status filter (open / approved / changes_requested / merged / rejected / closed)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the scope of returned pull requests varies by subscription tier (own designs on Free, all designs on Pro). It omits pagination and result-shape details, but the tier gating is real added value.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The tier sentence is compact but uses marketing shorthand ("Free door, tiered answer", "✓") that takes a beat longer to parse than a plain statement of plan-based visibility.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns conceptually and the important caveat about tier-limited visibility. Pagination or ordering behavior would be the remaining gap, but that is minor at this complexity.

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 status parameter already enumerates open/approved/changes_requested/merged/rejected/closed, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that filtering is optional, adding no new meaning about format, defaults, or how filters combine.

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?

"List proposed design changes, optionally filtered" states a specific verb (list) and resource (proposed design changes / pull requests) plus the filtering capability. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_design_pull_request, review_design_pull_request, or withdraw_design_pull_request, leaving the agent to infer that this is the collection-level read.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "optionally" signals the filters are non-required, and the tier line hints that the visible result set depends on the caller's plan. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the single-PR sibling or the review tool, and no exclusions.

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