github-pr-review-mcp

ensure_pending_review

Creates or returns an existing pending review for a pull request, providing reviewId and commitId for adding inline comments.

Instructions

Ensure a pending review exists for the PR. Creates a new pending review if none exists, or returns the existing one. Returns reviewId and commitId for adding inline comments.

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>",
      "prNumber": "<prNumber>"
    },
    "name": "ensure_pending_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Optional body text for the pending review
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner/organization
`prNumber`	Yes	Pull request number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states the side effect (creates a pending review), the idempotent fallback (returns existing), and the key return values (reviewId and commitId). It does not cover permissions or failure cases, but those are peripheral for this operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: purpose, behavior, and outcome are each handled once. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description tells an agent why to call, what it will do, and what it returns, which is enough to invoke it despite the lack of an output schema. It could be richer by mentioning the surrounding review/comment workflow, but nothing essential to calling is missing.

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 all four parameters including the optional body are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level nuance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names the exact resource (pending review for a PR) and the second clarifies the operation: create if absent, return if present. This get-or-create behavior is specific enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like get_pending_review even though no sibling is named.

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 closing clause 'for adding inline comments' gives a concrete reason to call this tool before commenting. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

Deploy Server