Skip to main content
Glama
r28ai

GitHub + Linear Dev Workflows

by r28ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

github_code_scanning_list_alerts

Read-onlyIdempotent

List code scanning alerts with the rule, file, and line that triggered each, then filter by pull request, branch, state, or severity to review security findings.

Instructions

List code scanning alerts, each with the rule that fired and the file and line it fired on. Filter to one pull request with pr, or to a branch with ref. Needs GitHub Advanced Security on a private repository, which answers 403 without it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prNoThe number of the pull request for the results you want to list.
refNoThe Git reference for the results you want to list. A branch can be `refs/heads/BRANCH` or simply `BRANCH`. To reference a pull request use `refs/pull/NUMBER/merge`.
pageNoThe page number of the results to fetch. Defaults to 1.
repoYesThe name of the repository without the `.git` extension. The name is not case sensitive.
sortNoThe property by which to sort the results. GitHub uses `created` when this is absent.
ownerYesThe account owner of the repository. The name is not case sensitive.
stateNoIf specified, only code scanning alerts with this state will be returned.
perPageNoThe number of results per page (max 100). Defaults to 30.
severityNoIf specified, only code scanning alerts with this severity will be returned.
toolGuidNoThe GUID of a code scanning tool. Note that some code scanning tools may not include a GUID in their analysis data. Cannot be combined with `tool_name`.
toolNameNoThe name of a code scanning tool. Only results by this tool will be listed. You can specify the tool by using either `tool_name` or `tool_guid`, but not both.
assigneesNoFilter alerts by assignees, as a comma-separated list of user handles. Use `*` for at least one assignee or `none` for unassigned.
directionNoThe direction to sort the results by. GitHub uses `desc` when this is absent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description adds useful context beyond them. It describes the alert contents (rule, file, line), names the filtering dimensions, and explicitly warns about the GitHub Advanced Security requirement and resulting 403 error.

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?

Three tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then add filtering guidance and the authentication prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema fully documents the parameters and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It also helpfully describes the returned alert shape and auth prerequisite, though it does not mention pagination behavior.

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 already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides for `pr` and `ref`, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing code scanning alerts. It also names the returned content (rule, file, line) and distinguishes this tool from sibling alert-listing tools such as secret scanning and Dependabot alerts by naming 'code scanning alerts' explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear filtering context: use `pr` to filter to a pull request or `ref` to filter to a branch. It also states a prerequisite (GitHub Advanced Security on private repositories) and the 403 consequence, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with its sibling scanning-alert tools.

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