github-pr-review-mcp

update_pr

Update a pull request's title, body, or open/closed state directly from the GitHub review workflow.

Instructions

Update PR title, description, or state

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": "update_pr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	New PR description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner/organization
`state`	No	PR state
`title`	No	New PR title
`prNumber`	Yes	Pull request number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a mutating operation but omits important context such as authorization requirements, whether state transitions are restricted, side effects, or what the response contains. This is thin for a write 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the verb, resource, and affected fields immediately. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema fully documents all six parameters, required fields, and the state enum, so an agent can construct a valid call. The main gaps are behavioral context and the absence of an output schema, but the structured information is rich enough to make the tool usable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of title, description, and state merely echoes existing parameter descriptions and adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: update a PR, and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, state). The sibling tools are all get/review/comment operations, making the mutation purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings in the text.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: modify PR metadata fields such as title, description, or state. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The contrast with non-mutating sibling tools is inferable but not stated.

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

Deploy Server