GitHub PR MCP Server

create_pull_request_comment

Add a general comment to a GitHub pull request by specifying repository owner, repo name, PR number, and comment text.

Instructions

Crea un comentario general en un 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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "pull_number": "<pull_number>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_pull_request_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Texto del comentario
`repo`	Yes	Nombre del repositorio
`owner`	Yes	Usuario u organización propietaria del repositorio
`pull_number`	Yes	Número del Pull Request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'creates a general comment' but does not mention permissions, idempotency, rate limits, side effects, or response format. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous content. Every word earns its place, delivering the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite complete parameter documentation, the tool has no annotations and no output schema, leaving the description to provide full operational context. It does not explain when to use the tool, what it returns, or any prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The qualifier 'general' provides minor context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?

The description states a specific action ('Crea un comentario general en un Pull Request') with a clear verb and resource, and the word 'general' distinguishes it from line-specific or review comments. This aligns with sibling tools like create_pull_request_review, making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pull_request_review or list_pull_request_comments. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

Deploy Server