Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CNB Remote MCP

CNB Remote MCP

by htazq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List PR commits

pr_commits
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists commits contained in a pull request for a given repository, enabling review of changes and commit history.

Instructions

List commits contained in 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_commits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"
numberYesPR number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

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 mention of pagination, result ordering, or whether all commits are returned. With annotations carrying the weight, this is a minimal but not misleading sentence.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in usage and behavioral detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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 full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the essential calling information is present. However, nothing is said about result volume or pagination behavior, which an agent may need to know before invoking it on a large PR.

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 both 'repo' and 'number' documented in the schema including format examples and bounds. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List commits contained in a pull request'), which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as repo_commits_list or pr_get, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use this tool versus repo_commits_list (repo-scoped commits) or pr_get (PR metadata). The agent must infer that this is the PR-scoped variant purely from the name and the word 'pull request' in the description.

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