github_prList, retrieve, or create GitHub pull requests. Specify repository, title, body, and branch to create a PR, or use a PR number to fetch its details.
List/get/create PRs. create prompts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| head | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| action | No | list | |
| number | No | ||
| full_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action ('List/get/create') without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or impact of creating a PR. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but not effectively structured; the fragment 'create prompts' is unclear and seems out of place. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to deliver essential information in an organized manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that does not compensate), the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks any information about action values, full_name semantics, or how to construct a request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (full_name, action, number, etc.). The agent cannot infer parameter meanings or required values from either source, making correct invocation nearly impossible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List/get/create PRs' which clearly identifies the verb and resource, but the appended 'create prompts' is ambiguous and may confuse the agent. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_issue or github_repo, so the purpose is clear but not well-scoped.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.