Skip to main content
Glama

add_merge_request_comment

Add a comment to a GitLab merge request by specifying the project ID, merge request internal ID, and comment content for collaboration and feedback.

Instructions

Add a comment to a merge request in a GitLab project

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler implementation for add_merge_request_comment.
    export async function addMergeRequestComment(projectId: string, mergeRequestIid: number, body: string): Promise<GitLabComment> {
      if (!projectId?.trim()) {
        throw new Error("Project ID is required");
      }
      if (!mergeRequestIid || mergeRequestIid < 1) {
        throw new Error("Valid merge request IID is required");
      }
      if (!body?.trim()) {
        throw new Error("Comment body is required");
      }
    
      const endpoint = `/projects/${encodeProjectId(projectId)}/merge_requests/${mergeRequestIid}/notes`;
    
      const comment = await gitlabPost<GitLabComment>(endpoint, { body });
      return GitLabCommentSchema.parse(comment);
    }
  • Input schema definition for the add_merge_request_comment tool.
    export const AddMergeRequestCommentSchema = z.object({
      project_id: z.string().describe("Project ID or URL-encoded path"),
      merge_request_iid: z.number().describe("Merge request internal ID"),
      body: z.string().describe("Content of the comment")
    });
    
    // Comment response schema
  • src/server.ts:206-210 (registration)
    Tool registration in the MCP server.
        name: "add_merge_request_comment",
        description: "Add a comment to a merge request in a GitLab project",
        inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(AddMergeRequestCommentSchema)
      }
    ]
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. While 'Add a comment' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, whether comments are editable/deletable, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary 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 a comment (success response, error conditions), permissions needed, or how this operation fits into GitLab's workflow. The combination of missing behavioral context and output information creates significant gaps.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for project_id or character limits for body. The 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 a merge request in a GitLab project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'add_issue_comment' beyond the different resource type, missing an opportunity for clearer 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_issue_comment' for commenting on issues, or 'update_merge_request' for modifying the merge request itself. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or contextual constraints for commenting on merge requests.

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