Skip to main content
Glama
RPasquale

lightbulb-mcp

by RPasquale
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

github_remove_requested_reviewers

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes requested reviewers from a GitHub pull request to adjust review assignments.

Instructions

Github connector operation remove_requested_reviewers (platform tool github.remove_requested_reviewers).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Effect"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds a routing constraint but no additional behavioral details, such as side effects (e.g., notifications) or the fact that it modifies a pull request. It does not contradict annotations but also does not go beyond them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and organized with a clear list of arguments. However, it opens with a redundant restatement of the tool name and the routing constraint before listing parameters. The structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Given that this is a connector operation with a generic wrapper, the description lacks essential details like what must be included in the 'arguments' JSON, what the operation returns, and any permissions or preconditions. An agent would not be able to construct a valid call based solely on this description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides generic definitions for standard parameters (project_id, project_ref, etc.) that are not operation-specific. The critical 'arguments' parameter, which should contain the actual operation payload (e.g., repo, pull number, reviewers), is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without any detail on required fields. The schema has no descriptions, so the description fails to fill the gap for the key parameter.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The tool name and the description 'Github connector operation `remove_requested_reviewers`' clearly indicate the action of removing requested reviewers on GitHub. However, the description itself does not elaborate on the purpose beyond the name; it relies on the operation name to convey the function. The routing statement adds context but not purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. It only states a routing constraint ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') which is not usage guidance. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would choose this over other GitHub operations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools