Skip to main content
Glama

get_pull_request_details

Retrieve detailed information about a specific pull request on AtomGit by providing the repository owner, repository name, and pull request number.

Instructions

Get details of a specific pull request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYes
repoYes
pull_numberYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that performs the AtomGit API request to retrieve pull request details.
    export async function getPullRequestDetails(owner: string, repo: string, pull_number: number) {
      return atomGitRequest(
        `https://api.atomgit.com/repos/${encodeURIComponent(owner)}/${encodeURIComponent(repo)}/pulls/${encodeURIComponent(pull_number)}`,
        {
          method: "GET",
        }
      );
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the get_pull_request_details tool.
    export const GetPullRequestDetailsSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string(),
      repo: z.string(),
      pull_number: z.number(),
    });
  • index.ts:138-141 (registration)
    Registration of the get_pull_request_details tool in the MCP server tool list, including name, description, and input schema.
      name: "get_pull_request_details",
      description: "Get details of a specific pull request",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(pull.GetPullRequestDetailsSchema),
    },
  • The switch case dispatcher in the MCP CallToolRequest handler that parses arguments and invokes the getPullRequestDetails function.
    case "get_pull_request_details": {
      const args = pull.GetPullRequestDetailsSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const result = await pull.getPullRequestDetails(args.owner, args.repo, args.pull_number);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), or what happens if the pull request doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how to interpret parameters, or behavioral aspects like safety and errors. For a tool that fetches specific data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'owner', 'repo', or 'pull_number' represent (e.g., GitHub username, repository name, PR identifier), their formats, or constraints. With 3 undocumented parameters, this is a significant gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get details of a specific pull request' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('pull request'), but it's vague about what 'details' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pull_request_comment' by focusing on the pull request itself rather than its comments, but doesn't specify scope (e.g., metadata, diff, reviews) or differentiate from 'get_issue_details' for pull requests that are also issues.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific pull request number), contrast with 'get_issue_details' for pull requests that are issues, or indicate when other tools like 'get_pull_request_comment' might be more appropriate for comment-specific details.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kaiyuanxiaobing/atomgit-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server