Skip to main content
Glama

create_pull_request_reply

Reply to comments on pull requests to facilitate code review discussions and collaboration on AtomGit repositories.

Instructions

Reply to a comment on a pull request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYes
repoYes
pull_numberYes
comment_idYes
bodyYes

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of the create_pull_request_reply tool: makes POST request to AtomGit API to create a reply to a pull request comment.
    export async function createPullRequestReply(owner: string, repo: string, pull_number: number, comment_id: string, body: string) {
      return atomGitRequest(
        `https://api.atomgit.com/repos/${encodeURIComponent(owner)}/${encodeURIComponent(repo)}/pulls/${encodeURIComponent(pull_number)}/comments/${encodeURIComponent(comment_id)}/replies`,
        {
          method: "POST",
          body,
        }
      );
    }
  • Dispatcher handler case in the main tool request handler that parses arguments and calls the createPullRequestReply function.
    case "create_pull_request_reply": {
      const args = pull.CreatePullRequestReplySchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const result = await pull.createPullRequestReply(args.owner, args.repo, args.pull_number, args.comment_id, args.body);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema defining parameters for the create_pull_request_reply tool.
    export const CreatePullRequestReplySchema = z.object({
      owner: z.string(),
      repo: z.string(),
      pull_number: z.number(),
      comment_id: z.string(),
      body: z.string(),
    });
  • index.ts:147-151 (registration)
    Registration of the create_pull_request_reply tool in the list returned by ListToolsRequestHandler.
    {
      name: "create_pull_request_reply",
      description: "Reply to a comment on a pull request",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(pull.CreatePullRequestReplySchema),
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Reply to') but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity of a 5-parameter write tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and return values, failing to provide adequate context for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 5 undocumented parameters. It mentions 'comment on a pull request' and 'Reply', which hints at comment_id and body, but doesn't explain owner, repo, or pull_number. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Reply to') and target ('a comment on a pull request'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like create_pull_request_comment. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from create_issue_comment, which might be similar for issue contexts, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_pull_request_comment for top-level PR comments or create_issue_comment for issue comments. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kaiyuanxiaobing/atomgit-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server