Code Review MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'List[s] pull requests' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of PR objects with basic info), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of PR summaries), behavioral aspects like authentication needs, or how it interacts with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (repoId and status). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the format of repoId or the meaning of status values. However, since the schema provides complete descriptions, 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.

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests for a given GitHub repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like github_get_pr_details (which fetches details of a specific PR) and github_get_pr_diff (which gets diff content). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the filtering capability by status, which could help differentiate it further from other listing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over github_get_pr_details for specific PRs, or how it differs from gitlab_list_mrs for GitLab repositories. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing repository access or authentication.

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