GitHub PR MCP Server

merge_pull_request

Merge a pull request into its base branch to combine code changes and close the PR.

Instructions

Mergea un Pull Request en su rama base

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>"
    },
    "name": "merge_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Nombre del repositorio
`owner`	Yes	Usuario u organización propietaria del repositorio
`pull_number`	Yes	Número del Pull Request
`commit_title`	No	Título del commit de merge
`commit_message`	No	Mensaje del commit de merge

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a write operation, potentially destructive, may fail on merge conflicts, or requires specific permissions. The sparse description provides no insight beyond the basic action.

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 a single concise sentence, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified for a merge operation; while concise, it lacks critical information that would justify the brevity. It is not verbose, but the minimalism is a weakness rather than a strength.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description fails to convey side effects, potential failure modes, return information, or any contextual cues. Given the complexity (5 parameters, destructive action), the completeness is severely lacking.

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 all five parameters are individually documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about parameter usage or relationships, but the schema already suffices, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Mergea un Pull Request') and the target context ('en su rama base'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools (list, get, comment, review) which do not merge.

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_comment or get_pull_request. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as required mergeability checks or whether the PR must be open.

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

Deploy Server