Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cohors

cohors

by rushirb2001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Open pull requests

list_prs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists open pull requests across selected Git repositories, enriched with GitHub data, so you can see where reviews are waiting. Use an optional selector to scope the fleet.

Instructions

Open pull requests per repo (GitHub-enriched). Use for "any open PRs across my repos / waiting on me?". Needs a token (gh auth or GITHUB_TOKEN) — meta says so when absent — and repos without a GitHub remote are omitted. An optional selector scopes the set.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_prs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoWhich PRs to count (default open).
selectorNoPredicate that selects repos across the fleet; set fields to AND them, omit a field for no constraint (ADR-024). Scope: all (bool — the whole fleet), ids[str], name (glob, e.g. "pay*"), path_glob (* stays within one path segment, ** crosses /), root, group (a config-defined cluster name, e.g. "payments"). Local state: dirty, ahead (alias unpushed), behind, diverged, no_upstream, unpublished (a branch never pushed although the repo has a remote), stale_fetch (remote not fetched for over 14 days), has_stash, detached, conflicted, in_operation (merge/rebase/… mid-flight), error, branch (exact name), attention ("any"|"notice"|"warn"|"risk"). Remote (needs a GitHub token): ci ("passing"|"failing"|"pending"|"none"), min_prs (int). Combine: any_of[selector] (OR), not (selector). The empty selector {} matches NOTHING by design — pass {"all": true} for the whole fleet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a GitHub token requirement (gh auth or GITHUB_TOKEN) with a meta pointer when absent, and silent omission of repos lacking a GitHub remote. That omission caveat is important for interpreting an empty result. Return shape is not described, keeping it at 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before caveats and scoping, with no filler. The quoted user-question phrasing is slightly informal but functional; nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only two-parameter tool with a very rich nested selector and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth prerequisite, omission behavior, and scoping. The main remaining gap is what the result actually looks like (counts vs. a per-repo map), which matters given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the selector schema is exceptionally detailed (globs, ADR-024 semantics, empty-selector-{} matches nothing), so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only adds that the selector 'scopes the set' and never mentions the 'state' parameter, so it neither compensates nor extends meaningfully.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Open pull requests per repo') plus a qualifier ('GitHub-enriched'), which is enough to tell it apart from local-state siblings like list_repos or commit. It does not explicitly name a competing sibling (e.g. ci_status), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete triggering question ('any open PRs across my repos / waiting on me?') that tells the agent when this is the right tool. It also warns that repos without a GitHub remote are omitted, but states no explicit when-not condition or named alternative for local-only queries.

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