Create a pull request with configurable base branch, head branch, title, body, and draft status.
Create a Pull Request.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gh_pr_create"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | main | |
| body | No | ||
| head | No | ||
| draft | No | ||
| title | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation. It does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or consequences of creating a PR, providing no value beyond the name.
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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It states the main purpose but omits valuable context, so it is concise at the expense of usefulness.
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?
This is a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description is far too minimal to cover required context, such as branch requirements, behavior for missing fields, or what the tool returns.
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%, and the description provides no explanations for the five parameters (base, body, head, draft, title). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description itself adds no guidance beyond what the schema already shows.
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 'Create a Pull Request' uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gh_pr_list and gh_pr_merge, which have different actions.
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 like git_commit, git_push, or gh_pr_merge. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are mentioned, so the agent gets no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.