Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AdsMCP

AdsMCP

by skynes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ads_github_contribution_create_pr

Creates a GitHub branch and pull request from reviewed contribution changed files once confirm=true, enabling controlled publication of approved changes.

Instructions

Review the changedFiles from ads_github_contribution_status, then create one GitHub branch and pull request after confirm=true.

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": {
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "ads_github_contribution_create_pr"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
titleNo
confirmYesSet true only after reviewing the complete changedFiles list and approving publication.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 does disclose that this is a mutating publish step creating exactly one branch and PR, gated behind confirm=true. It omits permissions/auth needs, whether the branch or PR is created idempotently, what happens on partial failure, and what is returned.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single tight sentence that front-loads the prerequisite, then the action, then the gating condition; no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema write tool the description covers the essential workflow and safety gate, though it leaves permission requirements and the meaning of title/body unexplained.

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 coverage is only 33% — only `confirm` is documented in the schema, while `title` and `body` are bare strings with maxLength limits. The description compensates for neither, never explaining what title/body populate in the PR or how they are derived.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('create one GitHub branch and pull request') and frames the prerequisite sibling ads_github_contribution_status, so it is unmistakable versus status/setup siblings in the same family.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly sequences the workflow: review changedFiles from ads_github_contribution_status first, then call this only with confirm=true. It gives clear context but never states exclusions or what to do instead if the review is rejected.

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