Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

GitHub MCP Server — AutomateHub

by gnvidia06-ux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Comentar issue

add_comment_to_issue

Post a Markdown comment on an existing GitHub issue to reply, share updates, or leave notes; provide the repository, issue number, and comment text.

Instructions

Agrega un comentario a un issue existente de un repositorio de GitHub. Usala cuando el usuario quiera responder, dar una actualización o dejar una nota en un issue. Requiere el número del issue (si no lo sabés, primero usá list_issues).

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "issueNumber": "<issueNumber>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment_to_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesTexto del comentario. Acepta Markdown.
repoYesNombre del repositorio, sin el owner. Ejemplo: 'mi-proyecto'.
ownerNoUsuario u organización dueña del repositorio. Si se omite, se usa el usuario autenticado (dueño del token).
issueNumberYesNúmero del issue tal como aparece en GitHub, sin el '#'. Ejemplo: 3.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the issue must already exist; it says nothing about required write permissions, whether the comment triggers notifications, reversibility/deletion, rate limits, or what the call returns.

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 short sentences: purpose first, then usage conditions, then the prerequisite. Every sentence adds information and nothing is redundant.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and how to get the issue number. It leaves significant gaps regarding permissions/authentication needs and the shape of the response, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already documented, including Markdown support for body and the optional owner defaulting to the authenticated user. The description adds only the prerequisite that issueNumber is required and how to obtain it via list_issues.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: adding a comment to an existing GitHub repository issue. It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like create_issue or close_issue, which work on the issue itself rather than its comment thread.

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?

It states concrete usage situations (replying, giving an update, leaving a note) and includes a routing rule: if the issue number is unknown, use list_issues first. That is actionable guidance, but there is no explicit when-not to use this tool (e.g., for new issues use create_issue).

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