A
licenseB
qualityA
maintenanceA secure MCP server for interacting with GitHub issues, pull requests, repository files, and search, supporting both github.com and GitHub Enterprise Server.
18
AGPL 3.0
GitHub PR Comments MCP Server
GitHub PR コメント MCP サーバー
これは、GitHub 個人アクセス トークンを使用して GitHub Pull Request コメントを取得する Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバーです。
特徴
ファイルパス、行範囲、返信を含むPRコメントを取得します
Octokit経由でGitHub APIを使用する
StdioServerTransportを使用してMCPサーバーを実装します
構造化されたJSON形式でコメントを返します
Related MCP server: PR Reviews MCP Server
インストール
Smithery経由でインストール
Smithery経由で Claude Desktop 用の github-pr-mcp を自動的にインストールするには:
npx -y @smithery/cli install github-pr-mcp --client claude手動でインストールする
リポジトリをクローンする
依存関係をインストールします:
npm installGitHub トークンを使用して
.envファイルを作成します。GITHUB_TOKEN=your_github_token_here
使用法
プロジェクトをビルドします。
npm run buildサーバーを実行します。
npm startまたは、GitHub トークンを使用して直接:
node dist/server.js your_github_token_hereサーバーは、次のパラメータを受け入れる
get_pr_commentsというツールを公開します。owner: リポジトリの所有者（ユーザー名または組織）repo: リポジトリ名pull_number: プルリクエスト番号
カーソルとの統合
Cursor と統合するには、Cursor の MCP サーバー構成で次のコマンドを使用します。
node /path/to/dist/server.js your_github_token_here/path/toプロジェクトへの実際のパスに置き換え、 your_github_token_here GitHub 個人アクセス トークンに置き換えます。
テスト
サーバー機能を検証するためのテスト クライアントが含まれています。
プロジェクトをビルドします。
npm run buildテストクライアントを実行します。
npm test
テスト クライアントはサーバーを起動し、サーバーに接続し、サンプル パラメータを使用してget_pr_commentsツールを呼び出します。
応答フォーマット
サーバーは次の形式でコメントを返します。
{
"comments": [
{
"id": 123456789,
"path": "src/example.js",
"body": "This is a comment on a specific line",
"line": 42,
"start_line": 40,
"user": {
"login": "username"
},
"created_at": "2023-01-01T00:00:00Z",
"replies": [
{
"id": 987654321,
"body": "This is a reply to the comment",
"user": {
"login": "another-username"
},
"created_at": "2023-01-02T00:00:00Z"
}
]
}
]
}発達
サーバーを開発モードで実行するには:
npm run devライセンス
ISC
Available Tools
1 toolget_pr_commentsD
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (username or organization) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| pull_number | Yes | Pull request number |
TDQS
D1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
get_pr_comments
TDQS
D1.7/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is inherently distinct by default.
Naming Consistency5/5
A single tool inherently has consistent naming with itself. The name 'get_pr_comments' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which would be consistent if more tools existed.
Tool Count2/5
One tool is too few for a server focused on GitHub PR comments, as it lacks basic CRUD operations like creating, updating, or deleting comments. This severely limits functionality for the apparent domain.
Completeness1/5
The tool set is severely incomplete for handling PR comments. It only provides a 'get' operation, missing essential actions like create, update, delete, or list, which are necessary for a functional comments interface.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
Create, deploy, and operate MCP servers directly from your GitHub repositories.
A MCP server built for developers enabling Git based project management with project and personal…
An MCP server that gives your AI access to the source code and docs of all public github repos
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables checking GitHub and Codeberg PR reviews, change requests, and conversations.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that collects Pull Request comments from private GitHub repositories, including issue comments, review comments, and review summaries.118 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceA production-ready MCP server for triaging and reviewing GitHub pull requests via the GitHub REST API, providing typed tools to list, inspect, comment, add labels, and submit reviews.89 npmMIT