GitHub Prod MCP

trigger_workflow_dispatch

Trigger a GitHub Actions workflow dispatch by providing the repository, workflow ID, branch, and optional inputs.

Instructions

Trigger a workflow dispatch

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>",
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "trigger_workflow_dispatch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owner`	Yes
`repo`	Yes
`workflow_id`	Yes
`ref`	Yes
`inputs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens after dispatch. The minimalist description fails to provide any behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but not effectively concise. It lacks critical details, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient communication.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to use the inputs parameter.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about any of the 5 parameters. The 'inputs' object is not explained, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Trigger a workflow dispatch' is vague and essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_repository_dispatch' or provide context on what dispatching entails.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_repository_dispatch'. The description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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