OrionBI

Comment on a GitHub issue

github_create_issue_comment

Add a comment to an issue or pull request in a repository on one of YOUR OWN GitHub connections. Shared connections are read-only and cannot comment.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "number": "<number>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_issue_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Comment body (Markdown).
`repo`	Yes	Repository in "owner/repo" form, e.g. octocat/Hello-World. The owner is the GitHub LOGIN exactly as it appears in the repository URL (github.com/<owner>/<repo>) — not a display name, and not the connection's name.
`number`	Yes	Issue or pull request number.
`connection`	No	Which GitHub connection to use, by its name from github_list_connections. This is a local label for the connection, NOT a GitHub username — for anything GitHub has to resolve, use that connection's login instead. Optional when you have exactly one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does, disclosing the authentication/permission constraint that only 'YOUR OWN' connections can write. It does not mention side effects such as notifications to watchers or rate limits, keeping it below the top mark.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action first and the permission caveat second. Nothing is redundant with the title or with structured fields, and every clause carries information.

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 4-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key permission precondition. It could add what the tool returns (the created comment) or whether duplicate bodies are deduplicated (relevant given idempotentHint=false), but no critical gap remains.

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%, including careful guidance on the repo owner/login distinction and the connection label versus login, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only reinforces the connection-ownership concept and adds no format or syntax detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add a comment to an issue or pull request') plus the scope ('in a repository'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like github_create_issue, github_get_issue, and the read-only listing tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides an explicit exclusion: shared connections are read-only and cannot comment, so the agent knows one condition under which this tool will fail and should not be attempted. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g., how to gain a writable connection via github_list_connections), so it is not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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

All OrionBI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?