GitHub MCP Server

list_pr_files

View files modified in a GitHub pull request to track changes and review code updates. This tool retrieves file lists for specified repositories and pull request numbers.

Instructions

List files changed in a pull request.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "pull_number": "<pull_number>"
    },
    "name": "list_pr_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`pull_number`	Yes	Pull request number
`per_page`	No	Results per page (max 100)
`page`	No	Page number

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, paginated behavior (implied by parameters but not explicit), rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 3 required), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination details, error handling) and usage guidelines, which are important for an agent to use it correctly without annotations.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'pull_number' relates to the PR or the context of pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('files changed in a pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_commits' or 'list_pr_commits', which might list related but different resources, so it doesn't achieve full sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to siblings like 'list_pull_requests' or 'list_pr_commits', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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

Deploy Server