pr_createOpen a pull request in a Lizard Git repository from a head branch or fork into a base branch, with optional draft status.
Open a pull request in a Lizard Git repository from head (a branch, or owner:branch of a fork) into base (default branch if omitted). draft: true opens it as a draft.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| body | No | ||
| head | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | Lizard Git repository as "owner/name" (repo_list) | |
| draft | No | ||
| title | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag this as a non-idempotent, destructive write, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It does add value by defining the fork syntax ('owner:branch') and the draft switch, but it omits what happens when a PR already exists for the same head/base — the key risk for a non-idempotent create.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The core action and the head→base direction come first, with the draft detail trailing as a secondary note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the semantically hard parameters well. A minor gap remains around the failure mode for duplicate PRs and whether the created PR's identifier is returned, but the essentials for a correct call are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (just repo), so the description must compensate — and it does: head accepts a branch or 'owner:branch' of a fork, base defaults to the default branch when omitted, and draft:true creates a draft. Only title and body, which are self-explanatory, are left undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Open a pull request in a Lizard Git repository') and immediately scopes it with the head→base direction. The verb alone separates it from pr_list, pr_show, and pr_merge without needing to name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clarifies the head/base relationship and the default for base, which tells the agent how to invoke it, but never says when to use this versus pr_merge or pr_show, nor what precondition (an existing branch with commits) must hold. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.