GitHub PR Issue Analyser

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Github Get Pr Content

github_get_pr_content

Read-only

Fetches a specific pull request’s content and details by repository owner, repository name, and PR number to support pull request analysis.

Instructions

Fetches the content/details of a specific pull request.

Workflow and conventions: github_get_skill('pr-analysis').

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pr_number`	Yes
`repo_name`	Yes
`repo_owner`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`author`	Yes
`merged`	Yes
`commits`	Yes
`base_ref`	Yes
`head_ref`	Yes
`head_sha`	Yes
`is_draft`	Yes
`additions`	Yes
`deletions`	Yes
`mergeable`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`changed_files`	Yes
`mergeable_state`	Yes
`requested_teams`	Yes
`requested_reviewers`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv54.0.0Oct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / additions
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / changed_files
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / commits
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / deletions
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / is_draft
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / mergeable

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / mergeable_state
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / merged
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "title",
-  "description",
-  "author",
-  "created_at",
-  "updated_at",
-  "state",
-  "head_sha",
-  "head_ref",
-  "base_ref",
-  "requested_reviewers",
-  "requested_teams"
-]New value: +[
+  "title",
+  "description",
+  "author",
+  "created_at",
+  "updated_at",
+  "state",
+  "is_draft",
+  "merged",
+  "mergeable",
+  "mergeable_state",
+  "head_sha",
+  "head_ref",
+  "base_ref",
+  "requested_reviewers",
+  "requested_teams",
+  "commits",
+  "additions",
+  "deletions",
+  "changed_files"
+]

Addedv42.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured metadata. The description adds little behavioral context beyond saying it fetches PR content/details and pointing to a skill workflow; it does not describe auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is a compact workflow pointer, though its value is somewhat opaque without knowing what the referenced skill provides.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only PR lookup with annotations and an output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, it leaves important gaps around parameter meaning and differentiation from sibling PR-inspection tools, which an agent would need when deciding whether to call it.

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%, and the description does not explain the three required parameters repo_owner, repo_name, and pr_number. The phrase 'specific pull request' weakly implies pr_number, but owner/repo semantics and formatting are left entirely to the parameter names.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it fetches the content/details of a specific pull request. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the basic operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as github_get_pr_diff, github_get_pr_status_checks, or github_get_pr_linked_issues.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage-related guidance is the instruction to consult github_get_skill('pr-analysis'), which is a workflow convention rather than a condition for selecting this tool. It does not explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives like github_get_pr_diff or github_get_pr_status_checks, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server