mcp-gitlab-workflow

gitlab_add_issue_comment

Add a comment to a GitLab issue, optionally generating it automatically from the files changed in a linked merge request.

Instructions

Create issue note/comment. Supports direct body or auto-generation from MR changed files (by MR IID or source branch).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	No	GitLab project ID. Omit this field unless the user explicitly provided a value. When omitted, the current runtime config value is used (WORKFLOW_ISSUE_PROJECT_ID overrides the built-in default when configured). If the runtime config is still unset, the tool returns a missing-parameter error. Do not infer or auto-generate this value.
`issue_iid`	No	Issue IID.
`body`	No	Comment markdown body. If provided, auto-generation fields are ignored.
`auto_generate_from_mr_changes`	No	When true and body is missing, generate comment from MR changed-file analysis.
`code_project_id`	No	Code project ID used for MR lookup/changes when auto_generate_from_mr_changes=true. Omit this field unless the user explicitly provided a value. When omitted, the current runtime config value is used (WORKFLOW_CODE_PROJECT_ID overrides the built-in default when configured). If the runtime config is still unset, the tool returns a missing-parameter error. Do not infer or auto-generate this value.
`mr_iid`	No	Optional MR IID for changed-file analysis.
`branch_name`	No	Optional source branch for MR lookup when mr_iid is not provided.
`target_branch`	No	Optional target branch filter while resolving MR by branch_name.
`local_repo_path`	No	Optional local repo path used to detect current branch when branch_name is missing.
`include_issue_context`	No	Whether generated comment includes compact issue requirement context. Default true.
`max_changed_files`	No	Maximum number of changed files included in generated comment. Default 30.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the tool call succeeded.
`tool`	Yes	Tool name.
`data`	No	Created GitLab issue note payload.
`error_type`	No	Error type when ok=false.
`message`	No	Error message when ok=false.

Tool Definition Quality

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a write operation (create) but omits side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error scenarios. The auto-generation logic is mentioned but not detailed. Minimal added transparency beyond the tool name.

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?

Two sentences totaling 18 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 11 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the two primary use cases. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this vs siblings, does not mention required permissions or prerequisites, and does not describe the return value (though output schema likely covers it). Adequate but with 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds value by summarizing the two usage patterns (direct body vs auto-generation), helping agents understand parameter grouping, but does not add new details beyond the schema.

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 tool creates an issue note/comment and specifies two modes: direct body or auto-generation from MR changes. The verb 'Create' and resource 'issue note/comment' are precise and distinguish it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_mr_note, which comments on MRs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use direct body vs auto-generation and provides context on how to specify the MR (by IID or source branch). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like gitlab_create_mr_note for MR comments. Still, given the sibling list, the differentiation is reasonably clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Latest Blog Posts

Lightport: Open-Sourcing Glama's AI Gateway
By punkpeye on April 27, 2026.
open source
OpenAI
Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
By punkpeye on April 3, 2026.
mcp
The Hackers Who Tracked My Sleep Cycle
By punkpeye on March 26, 2026.
security

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/chntif/mcp-gitlab-workflow'

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