github-pr-review-mcp

get_pr_files

Retrieve files changed in a GitHub pull request by specifying owner, repository, and PR number. Focus your review on the exact files that were modified.

Instructions

Get list of files changed 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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "prNumber": "<prNumber>"
    },
    "name": "get_pr_files"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read operation and does not mention return format, pagination, authentication needs, error behavior, or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and all inputs are covered by the schema, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify the shape of the returned list (e.g., file paths, statuses, additions/deletions). For a straightforward 'get list' operation the implied return is largely self-evident, making it adequate yet slightly incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (owner, repo, prNumber), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema fully documents each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of files changed in a pull request'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pr_details and get_pr_comments, which handle different aspects of a pull request.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pr_details or get_pr_diff_hunks. An agent must infer from the resource phrase that this tool is for file lists, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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

Deploy Server