GitHub MCP Server

github_create_pull_request

Creates a new Pull Request in a specified GitHub repository, enabling you to propose and merge code changes from a head branch into a base branch.

Instructions

創建新的 Pull Request

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>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "head": "<head>",
      "base": "<base>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`base`	Yes	目標分支名稱
`body`	No	Pull Request 描述
`head`	Yes	源分支名稱
`draft`	No	是否為草稿
`title`	Yes	Pull Request 標題
`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

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the bare action and omits permissions required, side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is reversible.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short phrase with no structure. While extremely concise, it is under-specified for a six-parameter mutation tool and does not front-load any useful context beyond the name.

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?

The schema is rich, but the tool is a complex write operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not compensate by explaining usage, behavior, or return expectations, leaving important context missing.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantics for required fields such as repository, title, head, or base, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description '創建新的 Pull Request' simply restates the tool name github_create_pull_request in Chinese, making it a tautology. It adds no further scope or detail to distinguish it from sibling write tools such as github_create_issue or github_create_pr_comment.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, differences from github_create_issue, or when creating a pull request is appropriate.

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