Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-api

gitlab-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get note

gitlab_get_note
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific GitLab issue note using its note ID, issue IID, and project ID to read or verify comment content.

Instructions

Get a specific 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_get_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
dataNo
note_idNo
issue_iidNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv27.3.13

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description contributes nothing beyond that – no mention of what happens if the note id is invalid, whether project/issue scoping is required, or how missing parameters are handled.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing beyond the title is conveyed.

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?

With no output schema, five undocumented optional parameters, and rich annotations but no textual support, the description should carry far more weight. An agent has no way to know the note's parent resource or the required identifier combination from this text.

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?

Five parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage and zero required fields, and the description names none of them. Critically, it never states that note_id must be paired with project_id and issue_iid, leaving the agent to guess how to scope a lookup with all-optional parameters.

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?

The description restates the title almost verbatim ('Get a specific note'), adding only the word 'specific'. It does not say what a note is attached to (issue, merge request, epic), which is the key disambiguation given the sibling tools gitlab_get_notes, gitlab_create_note, and gitlab_update_note.

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 guidance on when to use this versus gitlab_get_notes (the list variant) or the create/update/delete note siblings, and no note about required identifiers or prerequisites. The agent must infer the relationship between a single-note fetch and the list endpoint on its own.

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