Skip to main content
Glama

Create Issue Note Tool

create_issue_note_tool

Adds a Markdown comment to a GitLab issue using its project ID and issue IID, enabling teams to record updates and discuss work directly on the issue.

Instructions

Create a note (comment) on an issue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "issue_iid": "<issue_iid>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue_note_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesNote content (Markdown)
issue_iidYesIssue internal ID
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_iid / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a creation/mutation operation but does not state permission requirements, whether the note is public, side effects, or any constraints beyond what the schema already says about Markdown content.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action directly.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and its parameters are fully described in the schema. However, with no annotations and a mutation operation, the description could do more to explain permissions, visibility, or when to choose this tool over related note-creation tools.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema and provides only baseline context by clarifying that the note is a comment on an issue.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a note/comment on an issue. It clearly identifies the operation and target resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related create_mr_note_tool or list_issue_notes_tool siblings.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_issue_tool or create_mr_note_tool. Usage is only implied by the tool name and resource.

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