gitlab-api

Get commit discussions

gitlab_get_commit_discussions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve discussions for a GitLab commit to review comments, track feedback, and audit commit-related conversations.

Instructions

Get discussions on a commit.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a list of Discussion models.

Raises: ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided.

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_get_commit_discussions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`all`	No
`ref`	No
`data`	No
`line`	No
`name`	No
`note`	No
`page`	No
`path`	No
`force`	No
`since`	No
`state`	No
`stats`	No
`until`	No
`branch`	No
`actions`	No
`context`	No
`dry_run`	No
`message`	No
`coverage`	No
`per_page`	No
`ref_name`	No
`user_ids`	No
`group_ids`	No
`line_type`	No
`max_pages`	No
`rule_type`	No
`start_sha`	No
`project_id`	No
`target_url`	No
`with_stats`	No
`author_name`	No
`commit_hash`	No
`description`	No
`pipeline_id`	No
`report_type`	No
`author_email`	No
`start_branch`	No
`start_project`	No
`protected_branch_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

removedInput schema / properties / author_email / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "email",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / author_email / title
```
Added value: +"Author Email"
```
changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```

removedInput schema / properties / target_url / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "uri",
-    "maxLength": 2083,
-    "minLength": 1,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / target_url / title
```
Added value: +"Target Url"
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "project_id"
-]
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a generic wrapper/return note and a ParameterError mention, disclosing nothing about pagination limits, how discussions are ordered, or what identifiers are mandatory.

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?

The text is short, but nearly all of it is autogenerated docstring scaffolding ('Args: **kwargs', 'Returns: Response', 'Raises: ParameterError') that carries no task-relevant information. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

For a 39-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description supplies no required-input guidance, no pagination behavior, and no explanation of the Discussion returns. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema has 39 parameters at 0% description coverage, and the description covers them with '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request,' which actively obscures the key inputs (project_id, commit_hash). No parameter semantics are added beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent no guidance on which of the 39 fields matter for this call.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get discussions on a commit'), so the agent knows the operation. It does not distinguish this from the closely related sibling gitlab_get_commit_comments, which an agent would plausibly confuse with discussions on a commit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (project/commit identification), and no mention of alternatives such as get_commit_comments or get_notes. The agent must infer everything about selection 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.

Deploy Server