CNB Remote MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List PR comments

pr_comment_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves comments from a specified pull request using the repository path and PR number, with pagination controls for browsing results.

Instructions

List comments on 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_comment_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1
`repo`	Yes	Repository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"
`number`	Yes	PR number
`page_size`	No	Items per page (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about pagination behavior, ordering, result volume, or whether review/inline comments are merged with general PR comments, which are the real behavioral questions for a listing tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right shape for a simple read tool. It is efficient rather than padded, though that brevity comes at the cost of the missing differentiation noted above.

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?

Pagination parameters exist and there is no output schema, so the description should at least indicate what a listed comment contains and how paging behaves. More importantly, with pr_review_list as a sibling, it never clarifies the boundary between general PR comments and review threads, which is the one thing an agent most needs here.

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%, with page, page_size, repo and number all documented in-schema including formats and bounds. The description contributes no additional meaning, 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 ("List") and resource ("comments on a pull request"), so an agent knows exactly what it returns at a high level. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like pr_review_list or issue_comment_list, leaving ambiguity about whether inline review comments are included.

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 prefer this over pr_review_list for review threads, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing PR number. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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