github-pr-review

post_review_comment

Post inline review comments on specific file lines in a GitHub pull request.

Instructions

Post an inline comment on a specific file and line via a review submission.

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": {
      "pr_number": "<pr_number>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "line": "<line>"
    },
    "name": "post_review_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	The text content of the comment.
`line`	Yes	The line number in the file to attach the comment to.
`path`	Yes	The relative file path to comment on.
`pr_number`	Yes	The pull request number to comment on.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether it creates a pending review, submits immediately, or requires permissions. Missing behavioral details like side effects or prerequisites.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with essential information. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Description covers the core action and parameters. Output schema exists but not needed here. For a simple tool with 4 params, description is nearly complete; lacks only minor behavioral clarity.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning beyond consolidating the schema info. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the action (post), the resource (inline comment), and the specifics (file, line, via review submission). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pr_comments or approve_pr.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like request_changes. Usage is implied by context (PR review), but no exclusions or conditions provided.

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

Deploy Server