Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

withdraw_design_pull_request

Destructive

Close a design pull request you opened without merging it, withdrawing the proposed changes from review.

Instructions

Withdraw a pull request you opened: close it without merging.

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": {
      "pr_id": "<pr_id>"
    },
    "name": "withdraw_design_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_idYesPull request id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the concrete consequence (the PR is closed rather than merged) but says nothing about reversibility, whether the underlying branch survives, or what happens if the PR is already closed. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited clarification; every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter destructive action whose safety hints are supplied by annotations, the description says enough to call it correctly. It leaves the post-condition details (reopening, branch retention) unstated, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100% for the single pr_id parameter, so the schema already carries the documentation burden. The phrase 'a pull request you opened' adds a mild ownership constraint on the id but no format or sourcing detail beyond that, which matches the baseline.

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 pairs a specific verb (withdraw) with a specific resource (design pull request) and disambiguates the outcome with 'close it without merging,' which cleanly separates it from merge/review siblings. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'a pull request you opened' establishes an ownership precondition for use, and 'without merging' implies the contrasting action. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do for PRs you did not author, or if the PR is already merged).

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