Skip to main content
Glama

get_pull_request_status

Retrieve the combined status of all checks for a GitHub pull request by specifying the repository owner, repository name, and pull request number.

Instructions

Get the combined status of all status checks for a pull request

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that implements the get_pull_request_status tool logic: fetches the PR to get head SHA, then retrieves and parses the combined commit status from GitHub API.
    export async function getPullRequestStatus(
      owner: string,
      repo: string,
      pullNumber: number
    ): Promise<z.infer<typeof CombinedStatusSchema>> {
      // First get the PR to get the head SHA
      const pr = await getPullRequest(owner, repo, pullNumber);
      const sha = pr.head.sha;
    
      // Then get the combined status for that SHA
      const response = await githubRequest(
        `https://api.github.com/repos/${owner}/${repo}/commits/${sha}/status`
      );
      return CombinedStatusSchema.parse(response);
    }
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the get_pull_request_status tool: owner, repo, pull_number.
    export const GetPullRequestStatusSchema = 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:181-183 (registration)
    Tool registration in the MCP server's list of tools, including name, description, and input schema reference.
    name: "get_pull_request_status",
    description: "Get the combined status of all status checks for a pull request",
    inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(pulls.GetPullRequestStatusSchema)
  • MCP server router handler that parses arguments, calls the core getPullRequestStatus function, and formats the response.
    case "get_pull_request_status": {
      const args = pulls.GetPullRequestStatusSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const status = await pulls.getPullRequestStatus(args.owner, args.repo, args.pull_number);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(status, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status checks but doesn't explain what 'combined status' means, whether it includes details like individual check results, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external systems.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent 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 status checks (which often involve external CI/CD systems) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable use.

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 the three parameters (owner, repo, pull_number). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('combined status of all status checks for a pull request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' or 'get_pull_request_reviews', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 scenarios where this is preferred over other pull request-related tools or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without usage context.

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