Open a new pull request. head_branch is required; base_branch defaults to the repo default branch. Requires authenticated caller with write access. Returns {number, url}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | PR body (Markdown). Optional. | |
| repo | Yes | Repo name | |
| owner | Yes | Repo owner username | |
| title | Yes | PR title | |
| base_branch | No | Target branch (default: repo default branch) | |
| head_branch | Yes | Branch with the changes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. Description adds value by specifying required write access and return format {number, url}. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: purpose, key parameter rules, and permission/return info. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. Well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description states return format. With many siblings, it implicitly distinguishes from draft PR. Could explicitly mention that this creates a standard PR as opposed to draft, but overall complete for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description reinforces head_branch requirement and base_branch default, adding clarity beyond schema. Baseline is 3, and description provides additional helpful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Open a new pull request' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from the sibling 'gluecron_open_draft_pr' by not mentioning draft, indicating this is for standard PRs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description provides clear context by stating that head_branch is required and base_branch defaults to repo default, plus requiring write access. However, it does not explicitly guide on when to use this vs alternatives like draft PR or merge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have near-identical purposes, such as `gluecron_read_file` and `gluecron_repo_read_file` (both read a file from a repo), and `gluecron_explain_repo` and `gluecron_repo_explain_codebase` (both return cached AI explanation). This creates ambiguity despite minor differences in description. While many tools are distinct, the overlapping pairs force an agent to choose between effectively equivalent operations, lowering disambiguation.
All tools use the `gluecron_` prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `acquire_lease`, `create_issue`, `merge_pr`). A few tools like `gluecron_ai_cost_summary` and `gluecron_repo_explain_codebase` deviate slightly but remain readable and predictable. Overall, the naming convention is largely consistent, making it easy to infer tool function from the name.
With 60 tools, the server far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' per the guidelines. Although the server covers a broad developer platform (repository management, issues, PRs, workflows, AI features, etc.), the sheer number of tools makes navigation heavy and risks overwhelming both agents and users. A more focused set would improve coherence.
The tool set is remarkably thorough, covering nearly every lifecycle stage for repositories, issues, pull requests, workflows, branches, commits, and AI-assisted features (chat, test generation, release notes, refactoring, voice-to-PR). Essential CRUD operations are present, and advanced operations like leasing, sandbox provisioning, and multi-repo refactoring are included. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a developer platform.
