Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-api

gitlab-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Delete note

gitlab_delete_note
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a note from a GitLab issue using project, issue, and note IDs; confirms this destructive action when no client prompt is available.

Instructions

Delete a note.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_delete_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
dataNo
confirmNoExplicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
note_idNo
issue_iidNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.18
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv27.3.13

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeat semantics are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether deletion is permanent, whether child/reply notes are also removed, or what happens for the note author. For a destructive mutation, that is a real gap even with annotations present.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Four words are obviously concise, but this is under-specification rather than concision – the sentence earns its place only trivially. There is no front-loaded scope or constraint because there is no content beyond the title.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A destructive, six-parameter mutation with 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and every parameter optional demands far more than a four-word restatement. An agent cannot safely determine target identifiers or consequences from this definition.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 17% – only 'confirm' is documented. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, leaving note_id, issue_iid, project_id, body and data undocumented in both places. With zero required parameters, an agent has no idea which identifiers it must supply to target the correct note.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Delete a note." restates the tool name and title verbatim with no additional specificity. It doesn't indicate what kind of note (issue comment? merge request note? epic note?) or what scope (project/issue) is involved, so the agent cannot distinguish it from gitlab_delete_wiki_page, gitlab_delete_snippet, or gitlab_delete_issue beyond the word 'note'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or parent resources, and no reference to alternatives. An agent has no signal about when this is the right tool versus gitlab_update_note, gitlab_get_note, or the generic api_request, nor about what happens to replies on a deleted note.

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