github-pr-review-mcp

analyze_pr_code

Analyze pull request code changes to detect issues and provide actionable suggestions for improvement.

Instructions

Analyze code changes in a PR for issues and suggestions

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "prNumber": "<prNumber>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_pr_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner/organization
`prNumber`	Yes	Pull request number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral implications. It does not state whether this tool only returns analysis, whether it posts comments, whether it triggers any side effects, or what the agent should expect as a result. The phrase 'analyze code changes' implies a read-like behavior but never confirms or details it.

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?

The description is a single, tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, absence of annotations, and a crowded sibling set with overlapping review/analysis tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it interacts with PR state, or how it slots into the available review workflow.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already documents; it does not clarify relationships between the parameters or any format expectations beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('analyze') and identifies the resource ('code changes in a PR') and the purpose ('issues and suggestions'). It is clear enough on its own, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like review_pr_with_prompt, which likely serves a similar analysis purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pr_diff_hunks, get_pr_files, or review_pr_with_prompt. There is no mention of preconditions, when not to use it, or what distinguishes this analysis flow from the other review-oriented sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server