@sandboxapis/mcp

List pull requests / merge requests

list_pull_requests

Fetch a repository's pull requests or merge requests to check code contributions; filter by open, closed, merged, or all states.

Instructions

List a repo's pull requests (GitHub) or merge requests (GitLab). Optional state filter.

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": {
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	No
`state`	No	Provider state filter.
`provider`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.14Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description omits auth requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, return format, and whether all provider types in the enum are supported.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the filter note. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not address provider scope, pagination, return shape, or authentication, leaving gaps an agent would need to fill before invoking correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'repo' and the 'state' filter, and names GitHub/GitLab parenthetically, but does not explain the required 'provider' parameter, its enum of 21 values, or which providers actually apply to pull requests versus merge requests.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests' / 'merge requests'), and ties them to providers (GitHub/GitLab). It is clear at a glance, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular 'get_pull_request' sibling or from 'list_issues'.

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?

The only usage cue is that the state filter is optional. There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of 'get_pull_request', no prerequisites, and no exclusions for providers beyond GitHub/GitLab.

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

Deploy Server