pr-reviewer-mcp

post_review_comment

Posts the output of automated PR reviews as comments on GitHub pull requests. Streamlines submitting review feedback directly to the PR.

Instructions

Post a review (typically the output of review_pr) as a comment on the pull request.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "pull_number": "<pull_number>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "post_review_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Markdown body of the comment to post
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`pull_number`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., that it writes to a PR, requires authentication, or has rate limits). The name implies mutation, but explicit behavior is lacking.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slight expansion, but remains effective and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and sibling references, the description captures the core intent. However, it omits output details, error conditions, and permission notes, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 25% (only 'body' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions of owner, repo, and pull_number.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Post a review... as a comment'), the resource ('pull request'), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'review_pr' as its input source.

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?

The description explicitly ties this tool to the output of 'review_pr', providing clear when-to-use context. It does not state when not to use, but the sibling set makes the primary usage obvious.

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

Deploy Server