pr_listList pull requests from a Lizard Git repository and filter by open, closed, or all states to track repository changes.
List pull requests of a Lizard Git repository (state open by default; closed, all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Lizard Git repository as "owner/name" (repo_list) | |
| query | No | ||
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior the schema cannot express: that results default to open PRs only unless state is overridden. It says nothing about ordering, result limits, or pagination, which is the main remaining gap.
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 compact sentence with the scope stated first and the filter behavior in a parenthetical. The clipped "closed, all" phrasing is terse to the point of being slightly telegraphic, costing a little clarity for its brevity.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries some burden for return expectations, and it discloses neither the fields returned per PR nor any ordering/limit behavior. For a straightforward read-only list tool it is minimally sufficient, but an agent cannot predict result size or shape.
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 only 33%: repo is documented in the schema and state's default is clarified in the description, but the `query` parameter is a bare string with no documentation anywhere — the agent cannot tell whether it matches title, body, author, or branch. With coverage this low the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List pull requests") scoped to a Lizard Git repository, which separates it from pr_create/pr_show/pr_merge by intent. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the list-vs-show boundary.
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?
Usage is implied by the enumeration tool and the state filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance such as "use pr_show for a single PR" or any note about paging through large result sets. The default-state note is closer to parameter guidance than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.