list_pull_requestsRetrieve and filter pull requests in a Forgejo or Gitea repository by owner and repo, using state, labels, sort order, and pagination.
List pull requests in a repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| state | No | ||
| labels | No | Label IDs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that—it does not disclose the default state filter (typically 'open'), pagination behavior, or any rate-limit/result-cap context.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the core resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
For a 7-parameter listing tool with pagination and filtering options and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits what is returned, how results are paged (default 30, max 100), and how state/sort/labels affect the listing.
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 71%, and two enum parameters (sort, state) plus 'labels' carry no documentation at all. The description adds zero parameter meaning—it doesn't explain filtering by state, sorting options, or label-ID semantics—so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests') scoped to a repository, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it offers no differentiation from closely named siblings such as get_pull_request, list_pull_request_reviews, or list_pull_request_files.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request (single PR) or list_pull_request_files (PR contents), and no mention of prerequisite conditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.