Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TrustHarness

TrustHarness

by ofirtro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_pull_request

Fetches a pull request from a synthetic repository, exposing agents to untrusted content for security evaluation.

Instructions

Read an untrusted pull request from the synthetic repository.

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": {
      "pr_number": "<pr_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read' which implies a non-mutating operation, but does not disclose potential risks, return format, error behavior, or why 'untrusted' matters for safety. The single verb gives minimal transparency.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter. The description is extremely sparse, leaving the meaning of 'synthetic repository' and 'untrusted' unexplained, and it does not describe what the tool returns or how errors are handled. For a simple read tool it is minimal but still lacks important context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention pr_number at all. Although the parameter name and type ('integer') make its purpose somewhat obvious, the description adds no explicit guidance on what the parameter means, its format, or constraints.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('pull request'), and adds 'untrusted' and 'synthetic repository' to distinguish this from sibling tools like get_issue and read_file. It clearly identifies what the tool operates on.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'untrusted pull request' implies a specific use case (reviewing potentially malicious PRs), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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