capy-fleet

Ask a Capy thread to open a pull request

capy_open_pr

Ask an agent to commit work and create a pull request. Retrieve the PR URL by calling capy_wait or capy_status after.

Instructions

Ask the agent in a thread to commit its work and open a pull request, then report any PRs on the thread.

This is a convenience wrapper around capy_message: the Capy API has no endpoint that creates a PR directly, so the agent is instructed to do it. The PR will not exist the instant this returns. Call capy_wait or capy_status afterwards to pick up the PR URL.

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": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "capy_open_pr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`thread_id`	Yes	Thread id, e.g. "jam_123".
`instructions`	No	Extra guidance for the PR, such as the title, the base branch, or whether it should be a draft.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are present and the description adds context about asynchronous behavior (PR not existing on return) and the need to poll. No contradictions with annotations; useful behavioral disclosure beyond read/safety hints.

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?

Three sentences: first states the action, second explains mechanism, third gives post-call guidance. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, so description should cover return value. It mentions 'report any PRs on the thread' and polling, but does not specify what the immediate response contains (e.g., thread id or status). Adequate but has a gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds example values and clarifies that instructions can include title, base branch, or draft status, providing additional meaning beyond schema.

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 tool asks an agent in a thread to commit work and open a pull request, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like capy_message and capy_wait.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains it is a convenience wrapper around capy_message and that the PR is not created immediately, advising to call capy_wait or capy_status afterwards. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but provides clear usage context.

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

Deploy Server