Skip to main content
Glama

get_pull_request_reviews

Retrieve reviews for a GitHub pull request by specifying the repository owner, repository name, and pull request number to track feedback and code review status.

Instructions

Get the reviews on a pull request

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic by calling the GitHub API to fetch reviews for a specific pull request and parsing the response.
    export async function getPullRequestReviews(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      pullNumber: number
    ): Promise<z.infer<typeof PullRequestReviewSchema>[]> {
      const response = await githubRequest(
        `https://api.github.com/repos/${owner}/${repo}/pulls/${pullNumber}/reviews`
      );
      return z.array(PullRequestReviewSchema).parse(response);
    }
  • Input schema validation using Zod for the get_pull_request_reviews tool parameters.
    export const GetPullRequestReviewsSchema = 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:195-199 (registration)
    Tool registration in the list of available tools, including name, description, and input schema reference.
    {
      name: "get_pull_request_reviews",
      description: "Get the reviews on a pull request",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(pulls.GetPullRequestReviewsSchema)
    },
  • Dispatch handler in the main switch statement that parses arguments, calls the pulls.getPullRequestReviews function, and formats the response.
    case "get_pull_request_reviews": {
      const args = pulls.GetPullRequestReviewsSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const reviews = await pulls.getPullRequestReviews(
        args.owner,
        args.repo,
        args.pull_number
      );
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(reviews, 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 'Get the reviews' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how data is returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with 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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose efficiently, earning a top score for brevity and clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data (reviews). It doesn't explain what 'reviews' entail (e.g., approval status, comments), the return format, or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'Get the reviews on a pull request' clearly states the action (get) and resource (reviews on a pull request), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' or 'get_pull_request', which might retrieve related but different data, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid pull request), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_pull_request_comments' for comments instead of reviews, leaving usage context implicit 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