CNB Remote MCP

by htazq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Get PR CI check statuses

pr_checks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve CI check statuses for a pull request by repository path and PR number to verify build and test results.

Instructions

Get CI check statuses attached to a pull request.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "number": "<number>"
    },
    "name": "pr_checks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"
`number`	Yes	PR number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scoping detail that statuses are those 'attached to a pull request' rather than to commits or branches, and says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or what check states can appear.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or restatement of the title. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations yet no output schema, the description correctly identifies what is returned at a high level. It is slightly thin on return shape — whether statuses include names, conclusions, and URLs, or whether results are paginated — but not deficient enough to mislead an agent.

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 both parameters are documented in-schema with format hints ('owner/repo') and bounds. The description adds no meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CI check statuses attached to a pull request'), which clearly separates it from pr_get or pr_files. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby status-oriented siblings such as repo_commit_statuses or build_status, which could also surface CI results.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus pr_get (which may embed status), repo_commit_statuses (commit-level CI), or build_status (pipeline-level CI). The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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