github_add_pr_commentsAdds a comment to a specified pull request, enabling direct feedback and collaboration within GitHub PR discussions.
Adds a comment to a specific pull request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | Yes | ||
| pr_number | Yes | ||
| repo_name | Yes | ||
| repo_owner | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| html_url | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v42.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and nondestructive (destructiveHint=false). The description only restates the action without adding behavioral context such as permission requirements, rate limits, or effects on existing data.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple action, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context.
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?
Given the simple 4-parameter schema and available annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage differentiation and parameter detail, so an agent must rely on sibling names and parameter names to fully understand correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description only hints at 'comment' and 'specific pull request' without explaining repo_owner, repo_name, pr_number, or comment format constraints. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves most parameter semantics to inference from param names.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Adds'), names the resource ('a comment'), and identifies the target ('a specific pull request'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling github_add_inline_pr_comment, leaving some ambiguity about whether this is a top-level PR comment.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_add_inline_pr_comment or github_reply_to_review_comment. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the one-line description, with no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.