gitlab_create_issueCreate a new GitLab issue in a project or group with specified title, description, labels, assignees, milestone, and state.
Create a new issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| labels | No | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| issue_iid | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| state_event | No | ||
| assignee_ids | No | ||
| milestone_id | No | ||
| api_parameters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v27.3.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that: no mention of required identifiers, permission needs, or side effects such as triggering notifications or webhooks.
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 single sentence is short but empty rather than efficient, so brevity is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded information because there is essentially no information.
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?
For a 15-parameter mutation with no parameter documentation, no output schema, and ambiguous required fields, this description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what to pass or what happens on success.
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% across 15 parameters and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Critically, zero parameters are marked required, yet creating an issue realistically needs project_id and title, and the description gives the agent nothing to resolve that ambiguity.
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 sentence "Create a new issue" only restates the tool name and title without adding scope, target resource, or distinguishing detail. It does communicate a write of an issue rather than a merge request, but nothing beyond what the identifier already says.
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 rather than gitlab_update_issue, gitlab_api_request, or the GraphQL ops variants, and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that this is the creation path from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.