Skip to main content
Glama
saidsef

GitHub PR Issue Analyser

by saidsef
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Github Create Pr

github_create_pr

Create a pull request and apply labels in a follow-up call, ensuring label visibility even when the token lacks write access.

Instructions

Creates a new pull request. Labels are applied in a second call, since the create endpoint takes none, and they come back under labels so a set the token could not write is visible.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYes
bodyYes
headYes
draftNo
titleYes
labelsNoLabels to apply, with the 'mcp' tracking label appended unless mcp_label is False. Omit to leave the pull request unlabelled
mcp_labelNoAppend the 'mcp' tracking label to labels. Pass False to opt out
repo_nameYes
repo_ownerYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv42.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / labels / description
      Previous value: -"Labels to apply, with mcp appended. Omit to leave the pull request unlabelled"New value: +"Labels to apply, with the 'mcp' tracking label appended unless mcp_label is False. Omit to leave the pull request unlabelled"
    • addedInput schema / properties / mcp_label
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Append the 'mcp' tracking label to labels. Pass False to opt out",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv42.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write. The description adds valuable behavioral context about label handling: labels are not applied atomically, they are applied in a second call, and the token's write limitations are visible in the response. This goes beyond annotations and helps set expectations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences, reasonably short, but the second sentence is convoluted ('they come back under labels so a set the token could not write is visible') and could be clearer. It is front-loaded with the primary action, but the phrasing hurts readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is an output schema, so return values are partially covered, but the description doesn't mention what the PR creation returns or any authentication prerequisites. The label quirk is covered, but for a 9-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage, more context would be helpful.

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 only 22%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions labels and the label-appending behavior, but does not explain required parameters like repo_owner, repo_name, title, body, head, base. The schema's descriptions for labels and mcp_label are decent, but the rest are bare, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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?

Clearly states it creates a pull request, with a specific verb and resource. The mention of label handling distinguishes it from update operations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it doesn't fully separate from siblings like github_update_pr.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description notes that labels are applied in a second call, which is a behavioral detail rather than usage context. It does not state when to choose this over github_create_issue or github_update_pr.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools