Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_get_issue_comments

Retrieve comments from a GitLab issue to track discussion and progress. Specify the project path and issue ID to access relevant feedback and updates.

Instructions

Gets comments for a GitLab issue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesThe path of the GitLab project.
issueIidYesThe internal ID of the issue.

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that fetches GitLab issue comments by calling the GitLab API endpoint for notes on the specified issue.
    async getIssueComments(projectPath: string, issueIid: number): Promise<any[]> {
      const encodedProjectPath = encodeURIComponent(projectPath);
      return this.callGitLabApi<any[]>(
        `projects/${encodedProjectPath}/issues/${issueIid}/notes`,
      );
    }
  • src/index.ts:2066-2080 (registration)
    Registration of the tool handler in the MCP server's CallToolRequest handler switch statement, which invokes the GitLabService method.
    case 'gitlab_get_issue_comments': {
      if (!gitlabService) {
        throw new Error('GitLab service is not initialized.');
      }
      const { projectPath, issueIid } = args as { projectPath: string; issueIid: number };
      const result = await gitlabService.getIssueComments(projectPath, issueIid);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition in the allTools array, specifying the name, description, and input schema for validation.
    {
      name: 'gitlab_get_issue_comments',
      description: 'Gets comments for a GitLab issue.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          projectPath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The path of the GitLab project.',
          },
          issueIid: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'The internal ID of the issue.',
          },
        },
        required: ['projectPath', 'issueIid'],
      },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Gets'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or return values, which are critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context beyond the basic action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('projectPath' and 'issueIid'). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('comments for a GitLab issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_issue_details' or 'gitlab_get_merge_request_details' that also retrieve GitLab data, so it misses the highest score for sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention related tools like 'gitlab_get_issue_details' for issue metadata or 'gitlab_add_comment_to_issue' for adding comments, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing issue. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HainanZhao/mcp-gitlab-jira'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server