Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CNB Remote MCP

CNB Remote MCP

by htazq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get a pull request

pr_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a pull request with its merge conflict status and CI results to check readiness before merging.

Instructions

Get one pull request including mergeable_state (conflict/merge status) and CI statuses.

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_get"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add value by disclosing the return payload highlights (mergeable_state and CI statuses), which matters since there is no output schema. It omits caveats an agent would care about, such as whether mergeable_state can be absent or pending on freshly opened PRs.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (the returned fields) is placed up front.

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 two-parameter, read-only fetch tool, the definition covers purpose and key output fields adequately with no output schema needed. Minor gap: no mention of permission requirements or latency behaviors such as CI status computation on new commits.

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%, so both parameters (repo path format, PR number) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one pull request") and names two notable fields it returns (mergeable_state, CI statuses), which lets an agent distinguish it from pr_list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting it with siblings like pr_checks, whose territory overlaps with "CI statuses".

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 phrase "Get one pull request" implies single-PR retrieval versus listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. auth scope), and no pointer to alternatives such as pr_list or pr_checks.

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