@cloud9-labs/mcp-github

github_create_pull_request

Create a pull request to merge changes from a head branch into a base branch. Provide owner, repo, title, branch names, and optional body or draft setting.

Instructions

Create a new 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>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "head": "<head>",
      "base": "<base>"
    },
    "name": "github_create_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`base`	Yes	The name of the branch you want changes pulled into
`body`	No	Pull request description
`head`	Yes	The name of the branch where your changes are
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`draft`	No	Create as draft PR
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner username
`title`	Yes	Pull request title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, or the fact that it performs a write operation. The description adds no transparency beyond the tool name.

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 sentence with zero redundancy, but it is too terse to provide meaningful value beyond the tool name. It lacks any elaboration that would make the brevity appropriate for a 7-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is under-documented. The schema covers parameters, but the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the operation's implications, such as what the response contains or whether it requires special permissions.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient detail.

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 'Create a new pull request' clearly states the specific action (create) and resource (pull request), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as github_get_pull_request and github_create_issue.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios for using this tool, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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

Deploy Server