CNB Remote MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List pull requests

pr_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List pull requests in a CNB repository and filter results by state, author, target branch, or page size to find relevant reviews or changes.

Instructions

List pull requests with optional filters.

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>"
    },
    "name": "pr_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"
`state`	No	Filter by state
`author`	No	Filter by author username
`base_ref`	No	Filter by target branch
`page_size`	No	Items per page (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what the default state filter is (open vs all), how pagination behaves, whether results are sorted, or how many items come back — the things an agent actually needs to know for a list 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 redundancy — but the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing is wasted, yet little is earned.

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?

Six parameters, no output schema, and an open-world read tool: the description should at minimum clarify the default state, pagination defaults, and what the returned items look like. None of that is present, so an agent must infer list semantics entirely from the schema and annotations.

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 every parameter including repo format, state enum, and page/page_size bounds is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that filters exist and adds no extra semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List pull requests') and mentions filtering, which is enough to separate it from pr_get (single PR) in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'with optional filters' implies you should reach for this when you want a filtered collection rather than one PR, but no when-not conditions or alternatives (pr_get, pr_review_list, pr_checks) are named. Usage is inferable from the name alone rather than stated.

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