Skip to main content
Glama

resolve_review_discussion

Resolve or reopen discussion threads in GitLab merge request reviews to track feedback status and progress.

Instructions

Resolve or unresolve a 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 resolve/unresolve
resolvedNoWhether to resolve (true) or unresolve (false) the discussion

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic for resolving or unresolving GitLab merge request discussions. It extracts parameters, calls the GitLab API via resolve_merge_request_discussion, handles success/error responses, and returns formatted TextContent.
    async def resolve_review_discussion(gitlab_url, project_id, access_token, args):
        """Resolve or unresolve a discussion thread in a merge request review"""
        logging.info(f"resolve_review_discussion called with args: {args}")
    
        mr_iid = args["merge_request_iid"]
        discussion_id = args["discussion_id"]
        resolved = args.get("resolved", True)
    
        try:
            status, response_data, error_text = await resolve_merge_request_discussion(
                gitlab_url, project_id, access_token, mr_iid, discussion_id, resolved
            )
    
            if status == 200:
                action = "resolved" if resolved else "reopened"
    
                result = f"✅ **Discussion {action}!**\n\n"
                result += f"**Merge Request**: !{mr_iid}\n"
                result += f"**Discussion ID**: `{discussion_id}`\n"
                result += f"**Status**: {'✅ Resolved' if resolved else '🔄 Reopened'}\n"
    
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=result)]
            else:
                error_msg = f"❌ **Error {action} discussion**\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 resolve_review_discussion: {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)]
  • Input schema definition for the resolve_review_discussion tool, specifying required parameters merge_request_iid and discussion_id, optional resolved boolean, with types and descriptions.
    Tool(
        name="resolve_review_discussion",
        description=("Resolve or unresolve a 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 " "resolve/unresolve"),
                },
                "resolved": {
                    "type": "boolean",
                    "default": True,
                    "description": ("Whether to resolve (true) or unresolve " "(false) the discussion"),
                },
            },
            "required": ["merge_request_iid", "discussion_id"],
            "additionalProperties": False,
        },
  • main.py:340-343 (registration)
    Tool registration in the MCP call_tool handler dispatcher, which routes calls to the resolve_review_discussion function with config parameters.
    elif name == "resolve_review_discussion":
        return await resolve_review_discussion(
            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 required permissions, whether resolution is reversible, effects on notifications, or error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('resolve or unresolve a discussion thread') with essential context ('in a merge request review'). There is zero wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and scope.

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 incomplete. It lacks information on permissions, side effects, error handling, and return values. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the tool operates on discussions within merge requests, which is already clear from parameter names and schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('resolve or unresolve'), target resource ('discussion thread'), and context ('in a merge request review'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_review_comment' (adds new comments) and 'get_merge_request_reviews' (reads reviews) by focusing on resolution state changes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing to toggle discussion resolution status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'reply_to_review_comment' for ongoing discussions or prerequisites like required permissions. It mentions the context ('merge request review') but lacks when-not scenarios or clear alternatives.

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