Skip to main content
Glama
saidsef

GitHub PR Issue Analyser

by saidsef
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Github Get Pr Status Checks

github_get_pr_status_checks
Read-only

Retrieve CI check runs and commit status for a pull request's HEAD commit, flagging incomplete results as truncated and downgrading overall status to unknown to prevent acting on partial views.

Instructions

Return the CI check runs and commit status for a pull request's HEAD commit.

Pages through up to MAX_STATUS_CHECKS_SUITE_PAGES of check suites (50 per page). For any suite whose first 100 runs are not the full set, drains up to MAX_STATUS_CHECKS_RUN_PAGES_PER_SUITE additional pages via the supplemental query. If either cap is hit before the connection is exhausted, the result is flagged truncated=True and overall is downgraded from 'passing' to 'unknown' so the caller does not act on a partial view. head_sha names the commit read, and is None when GitHub resolves no commit for the pull request. See #515.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_numberYes
repo_nameYes
repo_ownerYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
overallYes
head_shaYes
pr_numberYes
truncatedYes
check_runsYes
commit_statusesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv54.0.0
    • addedOutput schema / properties / head_sha
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "pr_number",
-  "overall",
-  "check_runs",
-  "commit_statuses",
-  "truncated"
-]New value: +[
+  "pr_number",
+  "head_sha",
+  "overall",
+  "check_runs",
+  "commit_statuses",
+  "truncated"
+]
  2. Addedv42.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Excellent disclosure beyond annotations: it explains pagination caps, the supplemental drain logic, that truncation yields truncated=True and downgrades overall to 'unknown' to prevent acting on a partial view, and that head_sha is None when no commit resolves. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then the behavioral caveats. It is somewhat dense with internal constant names (MAX_STATUS_CHECKS_SUITE_PAGES, MAX_STATUS_CHECKS_RUN_PAGES_PER_SUITE) and an issue reference (#515), but each sentence carries meaningful information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description adds the truncation/failure-mode and head_sha-none edge cases that an agent wouldn't otherwise know, making it complete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the description bears the burden. It never describes repo_owner, repo_name, or pr_number, though they are standard GitHub identifiers that are largely self-evident. It does clarify the head_sha output semantics, but that is not an input parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the CI check runs and commit status for a pull request's HEAD commit.' This is unmistakable and no sibling tool covers CI check status, so an agent can select it directly.

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 purpose implies when to use it (need CI status for a PR), and it points to github_get_skill('pr-analysis') for workflow conventions. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like github_get_pr_content or github_get_job_log, so routing guidance is only implied.

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