Skip to main content
Glama

create_review_comment

Add a discussion comment to a GitLab merge request review to provide feedback or ask questions about code changes.

Instructions

Create a new discussion thread in a merge request review

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
merge_request_iidYesInternal ID of the merge request
bodyYesContent of the new discussion comment

Implementation Reference

  • The main asynchronous handler function that executes the tool logic: extracts arguments, calls GitLab API to create a merge request discussion, formats success/error response as TextContent.
    async def create_review_comment(gitlab_url, project_id, access_token, args):
        """Create a new discussion thread in a merge request review"""
        logging.info(f"create_review_comment called with args: {args}")
    
        mr_iid = args["merge_request_iid"]
        comment_body = args["body"]
    
        try:
            status, response_data, error_text = await create_merge_request_discussion(
                gitlab_url, project_id, access_token, mr_iid, comment_body
            )
    
            if status == 201:
                author_name = response_data.get("author", {}).get("name", "Unknown")
                discussion_id = response_data.get("id", "unknown")
    
                result = "✅ **New discussion created!**\n\n"
                result += f"**Merge Request**: !{mr_iid}\n"
                result += f"**Discussion ID**: `{discussion_id}`\n"
                result += f"**Author**: {author_name}\n"
                result += f"**Comment**: {comment_body[:100]}{'...' if len(comment_body) > 100 else ''}\n"
    
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=result)]
            else:
                error_msg = "❌ **Error creating discussion**\n\n"
                error_msg += f"**Status**: {status}\n"
                error_msg += f"**Error**: {error_text}\n"
                error_msg += f"**MR**: !{mr_iid}\n"
    
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=error_msg)]
    
        except Exception as e:
            logging.error(f"Unexpected error in create_review_comment: {e}")
            error_result = "❌ **Unexpected error**\n\n"
            error_result += f"**Error**: {str(e)}\n"
            error_result += f"**MR**: !{mr_iid}\n"
    
            return [TextContent(type="text", text=error_result)]
  • Input schema definition for the tool, specifying required parameters merge_request_iid (integer) and body (string), registered in the list_tools handler.
    Tool(
        name="create_review_comment",
        description=("Create a new discussion thread in a " "merge request review"),
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "merge_request_iid": {
                    "type": "integer",
                    "minimum": 1,
                    "description": ("Internal ID of the merge request"),
                },
                "body": {"type": "string", "description": ("Content of the new discussion comment")},
            },
            "required": ["merge_request_iid", "body"],
            "additionalProperties": False,
        },
    ),
  • main.py:336-339 (registration)
    Registration and dispatch logic in the call_tool handler that invokes the create_review_comment function with config and arguments when the tool name matches.
    elif name == "create_review_comment":
        return await create_review_comment(
            self.config["gitlab_url"], self.config["project_id"], self.config["access_token"], arguments
        )
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits, which is inadequate 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, and differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'body' is for discussion content, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Create a new discussion thread') and resource ('in a merge request review'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'reply_to_review_comment' or 'resolve_review_discussion', which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'reply_to_review_comment' for responding to existing discussions or 'get_merge_request_reviews' for viewing reviews, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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/amirsina-mandegari/gitlab-mcp-server'

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