github_submit_reviewSubmit a pull request review by specifying the repository, PR number, and review event—approve, request changes, or comment—with an optional body.
Submits a review for a specific pull request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| event | Yes | ||
| pr_number | Yes | ||
| repo_name | Yes | ||
| repo_owner | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v42.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a state-changing operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description does not add any behavioral context such as authentication requirements, potential conflicts with existing reviews, or that it is a one-time action. It simply restates the basic action without depth.
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 wasted words, but it is too thin to be effective. It is appropriately concise in length but sacrifices necessary detail, earning a middle score.
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 tool with five parameters, one required enum, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine appropriate usage context, event meanings, or return behavior from this definition alone.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters, yet it provides none. It does not explain the event enum values (APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, COMMENT) or that body is optional, leaving the agent to infer from bare 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 clearly states the action (submits) and the resource (a review for a specific pull request). It is distinct from sibling tools like adding comments or merging, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adding comments or listing reviews. The description does not mention that it is for approving, requesting changes, or commenting on a PR, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.