GitHub MCP Server

github_create_pr_comment

Add a comment to a GitHub pull request by providing owner/repo, PR number, and body text to share feedback or updates.

Instructions

在 Pull Request 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>",
      "pullNumber": "<pullNumber>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_pr_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	評論內容
`pullNumber`	Yes	Pull Request 編號
`repository`	Yes	倉庫標識 (格式: owner/repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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, and it does not state that this is a write/mutating operation, what permissions or auth token are needed, whether the comment is attributed to an authenticated user, or what the response contains. Only the basic 'posts a comment' behavior is conveyed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted in other dimensions rather than through deliberate economy.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least convey what happens on success or failure and any auth requirement. It leaves all of that unspecified, which is inadequate given the schema and annotations provide no behavioral context.

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%, with each of the three parameters (body, pullNumber, repository) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no formatting constraints, body-length limits, or repository resolution details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb (發表/post) and resource (評論 on a Pull Request), so an agent can tell it creates a PR comment. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling github_create_issue_comment, nor clarify how it relates to github_get_pr_comments, so differentiation is missing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the alternative github_create_issue_comment. The agent must infer on its own that this is the PR-scoped variant versus the issue-scoped one.

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