Skip to main content
Glama

reply_to_review_comment

Add a response to a specific discussion thread in a GitLab merge request review to address feedback or provide clarification.

Instructions

Reply to a specific discussion thread in a merge request review

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
merge_request_iidYesInternal ID of the merge request
discussion_idYesID of the discussion thread to reply to
bodyYesContent of the reply comment

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic: extracts arguments, calls the GitLab API to reply to a merge request discussion, formats success/error responses as TextContent.
    async def reply_to_review_comment(gitlab_url, project_id, access_token, args):
        """Reply to a specific discussion thread in a merge request review"""
        logging.info(f"reply_to_review_comment called with args: {args}")
    
        mr_iid = args["merge_request_iid"]
        discussion_id = args["discussion_id"]
        reply_body = args["body"]
    
        try:
            status, response_data, error_text = await reply_to_merge_request_discussion(
                gitlab_url, project_id, access_token, mr_iid, discussion_id, reply_body
            )
    
            if status == 201:
                author_name = response_data.get("author", {}).get("name", "Unknown")
                note_id = response_data.get("id", "unknown")
    
                result = "✅ **Reply posted successfully!**\n\n"
                result += f"**Merge Request**: !{mr_iid}\n"
                result += f"**Discussion ID**: `{discussion_id}`\n"
                result += f"**Note ID**: `{note_id}`\n"
                result += f"**Author**: {author_name}\n"
                reply_preview = reply_body[:100] + ("..." if len(reply_body) > 100 else "")
                result += f"**Reply**: {reply_preview}\n"
    
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=result)]
            else:
                error_msg = "❌ **Error posting reply**\n\n"
                error_msg += f"**Status**: {status}\n"
                error_msg += f"**Error**: {error_text}\n"
                error_msg += f"**MR**: !{mr_iid}\n"
                error_msg += f"**Discussion**: {discussion_id}\n"
    
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=error_msg)]
    
        except Exception as e:
            logging.error(f"Unexpected error in reply_to_review_comment: {e}")
            error_result = "❌ **Unexpected error**\n\n"
            error_result += f"**Error**: {str(e)}\n"
            error_result += f"**MR**: !{mr_iid}\n"
            error_result += f"**Discussion**: {discussion_id}\n"
    
            return [TextContent(type="text", text=error_result)]
  • Defines the tool schema including input parameters (merge_request_iid, discussion_id, body) for validation in the MCP server list_tools handler.
    Tool(
        name="reply_to_review_comment",
        description=("Reply to a specific 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"),
                },
                "discussion_id": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": ("ID of the discussion thread to reply to"),
                },
                "body": {"type": "string", "description": "Content of the reply comment"},
            },
            "required": ["merge_request_iid", "discussion_id", "body"],
            "additionalProperties": False,
        },
    ),
  • main.py:332-335 (registration)
    Registers the tool dispatch in the MCP server's call_tool method, mapping the tool name to the handler function call with config injected.
    elif name == "reply_to_review_comment":
        return await reply_to_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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Reply to' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether replies are editable/deletable, 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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 doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of how to properly invoke and interpret results.

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 adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced 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 ('Reply to') and target ('a specific discussion thread in a merge request review'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_review_comment' or 'resolve_review_discussion', which would be needed for 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 like 'create_review_comment' or 'resolve_review_discussion'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, 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/amirsina-mandegari/gitlab-mcp-server'

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