Skip to main content
Glama

github_checks_create_suite

Create a check suite for a GitHub repository to group check runs. Provide owner, repo, and optional request body.

Instructions

Create a check suite

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesowner
repoYesrepo
bodyNoRequest body (JSON object)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for github_checks_create_suite that issues a POST to /repos/{owner}/{repo}/check-suites with the provided body.
    handler: async (args: Record<string, any>) => {
      return githubRequest("POST", `/repos/${args.owner}/${args.repo}/check-suites`, args.body, undefined);
    },
  • Definition and input schema for github_checks_create_suite: accepts owner (string), repo (string), and optional body (JSON object).
    name: "github_checks_create_suite",
    description: "Create a check suite",
    inputSchema: z.object({
      owner: z.string().describe("owner"),
      repo: z.string().describe("repo"),
      body: z.record(z.string(), z.unknown()).optional().describe("Request body (JSON object)")
    }),
  • src/index.ts:110-129 (registration)
    Registration loop in src/index.ts that calls server.tool() with tool name, description, inputSchema, and handler for all tools including github_checks_create_suite.
    for (const tool of allTools) {
      server.tool(
        tool.name,
        tool.description,
        tool.inputSchema.shape as any,
        async (args: any) => {
          try {
            const result = await tool.handler(args as any);
            return {
              content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
            };
          } catch (err) {
            const message = err instanceof Error ? err.message : String(err);
            return {
              content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${message}` }],
              isError: true,
            };
          }
        }
      );
  • src/index.ts:62-62 (registration)
    The 'checks' tool module (containing github_checks_create_suite) is included in the allToolModules array.
    { category: "checks", tools: checksTools },
  • githubRequest helper function that executes the HTTP request to the GitHub API with auth headers and error handling.
    export async function githubRequest<T>(
      method: string,
      path: string,
      body?: Record<string, unknown>,
      params?: Record<string, string | number | boolean | string[] | undefined>
    ): Promise<T> {
      const url = new URL(`${BASE_URL}${path}`);
    
      if (params) {
        for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(params)) {
          if (value === undefined || value === null || value === "") continue;
          if (Array.isArray(value)) {
            url.searchParams.set(key, value.join(","));
          } else {
            url.searchParams.set(key, String(value));
          }
        }
      }
    
      const headers: Record<string, string> = {
        Authorization: `Bearer ${getToken()}`,
        Accept: "application/vnd.github+json",
        "X-GitHub-Api-Version": "2022-11-28",
        "User-Agent": "github-mcp/1.0.0",
      };
    
      if (body) {
        headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json";
      }
    
      const res = await fetch(url.toString(), {
        method,
        headers,
        body: body ? JSON.stringify(body) : undefined,
      });
    
      if (!res.ok) {
        const text = await res.text().catch(() => "");
        let detail = text;
        try {
          const json = JSON.parse(text);
          detail = json.message || text;
          if (json.errors) detail += ` -- ${JSON.stringify(json.errors)}`;
        } catch {}
        throw new Error(`GitHub API error ${res.status}: ${detail}`);
      }
    
      if (res.status === 204) return {} as T;
    
      return res.json() as Promise<T>;
    }
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations and a three-word description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The tool's behavior is opaque beyond its name.

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?

The description is concise at three words, but it lacks any structure such as bullet points or sections. It is not verbose, but its minimalism does not earn a higher score as it sacrifices informativeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of a check suite, the return format, or any constraints. The tool's context among many similar siblings is entirely ignored.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions ('owner', 'repo', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Create a check suite' specifies a verb and resource, but it is too terse and fails to explain what a check suite is or how it differs from similar tools like github_checks_create (which creates a check run) or github_checks_get_suite. It is not a tautology but lacks sufficient distinctiveness.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Among numerous sibling tools, including other checks-related ones, this omission is critical.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Eyalm321/github-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server