Compose a GitHub issue comment for review, with a dry-run default and explicit confirmation needed to post.
Draft a comment on an issue. Does not post unless confirm=true. Always show the draft to a human first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Markdown comment body | |
| repo | Yes | owner/name | |
| number | Yes | Issue number | |
| confirm | No | Must be true to actually POST. Default false (dry run). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the dry-run behavior, the confirmation gate for posting, and the human-review requirement. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the crucial caveats stated immediately after. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.
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?
The description adequately covers purpose, dry-run semantics, and the human-in-the-loop step, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe the return value or what happens after confirmation, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description references the confirm flag but otherwise does not add parameter meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Draft a comment on an issue.' It also clarifies this is not a posting operation unless confirmed, which distinguishes it from any posting sibling and from the search/summarize siblings.
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?
It states when to use the tool implicitly and adds critical usage constraints: 'Does not post unless confirm=true' and 'Always show the draft to a human first.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.