GitHub MCP Server

github_create_issue_comment

Posts a comment on a specified GitHub issue using repository and issue number, enabling direct issue discussion and updates via the GitHub MCP Server.

Instructions

在問題中發表評論

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "issueNumber": "<issueNumber>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_issue_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	評論內容
`repository`	Yes	倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo)
`issueNumber`	Yes	問題編號

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It implies a write operation but says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the comment is attributed to the authenticated user, rate limits, or what happens on failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no waste and the purpose front-loaded, but the extreme brevity leaves it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least convey the effect and any prerequisites. It conveys only the bare action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill by inference.

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 all three parameters (body, repository, issueNumber) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb ('發表' = post) and resource ('評論' = comment) applied to an issue ('問題'), so the agent can tell this creates an issue comment. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling github_create_pr_comment, but the tool name plus description make the target resource unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_create_pr_comment or github_create_issue. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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