React Development Workflow MCP Server

create_pull_request

Submit a pull request to GitHub with title, body, and source branch. Optionally specify target branch (default main) or mark as draft.

Instructions

Create a pull request on GitHub

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "sourceBranch": "<sourceBranch>"
    },
    "name": "create_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	PR description
`draft`	No	Create as draft PR
`title`	Yes	PR title
`sourceBranch`	Yes	Source branch
`targetBranch`	No	Target branch (default: main)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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. It only says 'Create a pull request on GitHub', which restates the tool's action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence and very concise, not verbose. It earns its place by stating the core action, though it lacks elaboration. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behaviors, requirements, or return values. It does not explain prerequisites like branch existence or authentication, nor what the PR object looks like on success. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but it does not mislead either.

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 tool creates a pull request on GitHub, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like check_pr_status and merge_pull_request, but does not explicitly contrast them or add scope details.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you want to create a pull request. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, but the action purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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

Deploy Server