pr_showRead a Lizard Git pull request to view its conversation, head commit, merge eligibility, and remaining branch-rule needs such as approvals and checks.
Read a Lizard Git pull request with its conversation, head commit, whether it can merge and what branch rules still need (approvals, checks).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Lizard Git repository as "owner/name" (repo_list) | |
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add what the call actually does. It does so by disclosing that the response aggregates conversation, head commit, mergeability, and pending branch-rule requirements — context an agent could not get from annotations alone.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then the returned facets, with no filler. Every clause carries distinct information.
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 must convey what comes back — it names conversation, head commit, merge status, and outstanding branch rules, which is the core of what a reviewer needs. It omits basic PR metadata (title, author, state) but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.
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 50%: "repo" is documented in schema as "owner/name", but "number" carries no schema description and the tool description says nothing about either parameter. "number" is reasonably inferable as the PR identifier, but the description does not 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Read a Lizard Git pull request") and enumerates the payload: conversation, head commit, mergeability, unmet branch rules. That payload detail distinguishes it from pr_list (enumeration) and pr_merge (mutation), though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
The word "Read" implies inspection of a single existing PR, so the use case is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no pointer to pr_list or pr_merge as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.