Skip to main content
Glama

add_issue_comment

Add comments to GitLab issues to provide updates, ask questions, or document progress within project workflows.

Instructions

Add a comment to an issue in a GitLab project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
issue_iidYesIssue internal ID
bodyYesContent of the comment

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of addIssueComment which makes a POST request to the GitLab API to add a comment to an issue.
    export async function addIssueComment(projectId: string, issueIid: number, body: string): Promise<GitLabComment> {
      if (!projectId?.trim()) {
        throw new Error("Project ID is required");
      }
      if (!issueIid || issueIid < 1) {
        throw new Error("Valid issue IID is required");
      }
      if (!body?.trim()) {
        throw new Error("Comment body is required");
      }
    
      const endpoint = `/projects/${encodeProjectId(projectId)}/issues/${issueIid}/notes`;
    
      const comment = await gitlabPost<GitLabComment>(endpoint, { body });
      return GitLabCommentSchema.parse(comment);
    }
  • Zod schema for validating add_issue_comment arguments.
    export const AddIssueCommentSchema = z.object({
      project_id: z.string().describe("Project ID or URL-encoded path"),
      issue_iid: z.number().describe("Issue internal ID"),
      body: z.string().describe("Content of the comment")
    });
  • src/server.ts:412-416 (registration)
    Registration/Handler block in the MCP server switch statement.
    case "add_issue_comment": {
      const args = AddIssueCommentSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const comment = await api.addIssueComment(args.project_id, args.issue_iid, args.body);
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(comment, null, 2) }] };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's an 'Add' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after adding the comment (e.g., returns comment ID, success confirmation), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to an issue in a GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_merge_request_comment', but the specificity of 'issue' vs 'merge request' provides implicit 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' or 'add_merge_request_comment'. The description states what it does but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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/TheRealChrisThomas/gitlab-mcp-server'

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