Skip to main content
Glama

Ankra

by ai.ankra
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

github_create_pull_request

Destructive

Create a pull request with file changes in a GitHub repository. Prefer the exact owner from github_list_repositories; 'repo' also accepts the combined 'owner/name' form. Creates a new branch from the base branch, commits the specified files, and opens a PR. Use this instead of github_commit_files when changes should go through code review rather than being committed directly.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoPull request description in markdown.
repoYesRepository name. Also accepts the combined 'owner/name' form.
draftNoIf true, create as a draft PR.
filesYesFiles to create or update. Each entry has a 'path' and 'content'.
ownerYesRepository owner (e.g. 'octocat'). Prefer the exact owner from a prior github_list_repositories call. May be embedded in 'repo' as 'owner/name'.
titleYesPull request title.
base_branchNoTarget branch to merge into. Defaults to the repository's default branch.
head_branchYesName for the new branch (e.g. 'feat/add-ci-pipeline'). Must not already exist.
commit_messageYesGit commit message for the changes.
confirm_large_deletionsNoPaths from 'files' whose new content is intentionally much shorter than the file it replaces. A commit that would replace an existing file with less than half of its content is refused unless that path is listed here. Leave this out unless a refusal named the path and removing that much is the change you intend.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_large_deletions
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Paths from 'files' whose new content is intentionally much shorter than the file it replaces. A commit that would replace an existing file with less than half of its content is refused unless that path is listed here. Leave this out unless a refusal named the path and removing that much is the change you intend.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / files / items / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"File content as a string."New value: +"The COMPLETE new content of the file. The commit replaces the whole file with this string; it is not a patch, so anything left out is deleted."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool creates a branch, commits full file contents, and opens a PR as a multi-step side effect. It does not restate the destructive/non-idempotent nature, but that gap is covered by annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter sourcing and the sibling-routing rule. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 10-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description explains the full side-effect chain and the key alternative. It leaves preconditions like 'head_branch must not already exist' and the large-deletion confirmation behavior to the schema, which is a minor omission.

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 baseline is 3. The description's note that 'repo' accepts the combined 'owner/name' form and to prefer the exact owner largely duplicates the owner/repo schema descriptions, adding little beyond them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a pull request with file changes in a GitHub repository') and expands the mechanics: new branch from base, commits files, opens PR. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling github_commit_files, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative rule: 'Use this instead of github_commit_files when changes should go through code review rather than being committed directly.' It also advises sourcing the owner from github_list_repositories, covering both the routing decision and a prerequisite call.

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

All Ankra toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources