Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PR Review MCP Server

PR Review MCP Server

by UtakataKyosui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

reply_to_review_thread

Add replies to GitHub pull request review threads. Post Markdown-formatted comments to continue discussions on code reviews.

Instructions

Add a reply to a review thread

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>",
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_review_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesReply content (Markdown supported)
repoYesRepository name
ownerYesRepository owner (username or organization)
thread_idYesReview thread ID (from list_review_threads)
pull_numberYesPull request number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only repeats the action. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., thread must be active), side effects, or response behavior.

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 sentence with no redundant content. It is as concise as possible for the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (5 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks context on return values, error handling, or how to obtain the thread_id (though it references sibling).

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 fully describes all 5 parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema carries the load.

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 description clearly states the action ('Add a reply') and the resource ('review thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'reply_and_resolve', which also adds a reply.

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 its siblings, such as 'reply_and_resolve' or 'resolve_review_thread'. The agent lacks context for appropriate selection.

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