Skip to main content
Glama

get_pull_request_files

Retrieve a list of files modified in a GitHub pull request by specifying the repository owner, name, and pull request number.

Instructions

Get the list of files changed in a pull request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesRepository owner (username or organization)
pull_numberYesPull request number
repoYesRepository name

Implementation Reference

  • Main handler function that fetches the list of files changed in a pull request from the GitHub API and parses the response using Zod.
    export async function getPullRequestFiles(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      pullNumber: number
    ): Promise<z.infer<typeof PullRequestFileSchema>[]> {
      const response = await githubRequest(
        `https://api.github.com/repos/${owner}/${repo}/pulls/${pullNumber}/files`
      );
      return z.array(PullRequestFileSchema).parse(response);
    }
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the get_pull_request_files tool: owner, repo, pull_number.
    export const GetPullRequestFilesSchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("Repository owner (username or organization)"),
      repo: z.string().describe("Repository name"), 
      pull_number: z.number().describe("Pull request number")
    });
  • index.ts:176-178 (registration)
    Tool registration in the listTools response, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    name: "get_pull_request_files",
    description: "Get the list of files changed in a pull request",
    inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(pulls.GetPullRequestFilesSchema)
  • Dispatch handler in the callToolRequest switch statement that invokes the getPullRequestFiles function and formats the response.
    case "get_pull_request_files": {
      const args = pulls.GetPullRequestFilesSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const files = await pulls.getPullRequestFiles(args.owner, args.repo, args.pull_number);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(files, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
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 ('Get the list of files changed') but does not describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format includes (e.g., file paths, change types), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with pull requests.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of pull request operations, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain behavioral aspects like read-only nature, output structure, or error handling, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool correctly in context with sibling tools.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'owner', 'repo', and 'pull_number'. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of files changed in a pull request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request', 'get_pull_request_comments', or 'get_pull_request_reviews', which also retrieve pull request data but focus on different aspects.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid pull request number, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' for general pull request info or 'list_commits' for commit-level changes, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tuanle96/mcp-github'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server