Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RepoControl MCP

RepoControl MCP

by johannschiffer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_pull_requests

Retrieve pull requests from a repository filtered by open, closed, or all state—ideal for reviewing pending code changes or tracking merge history.

Instructions

List pull requests in repository filtered by state.

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": "list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesTarget repository in 'owner/repo' format.
limitNoMax results to return (default: 30).
stateNo'open', 'closed', or 'all' (default: 'open').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

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 carries the full burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but the description says nothing about pagination, default limits, sorting, or permissions needed to view private repositories. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the resource and filter are front-loaded. It is not padded, though it is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful.

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?

For a simple three-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given no annotations and no disclosure of pagination or return behavior, it could say more about ordering and result shape.

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 the schema fully documents repo, limit, and state, including the owner/repo format and defaults. The description only restates the state filter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests'), and mentions the repository and state filter. It is distinguishable from create_pull_request by the verb, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other read-oriented siblings like get_issue_comments.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and verb.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools