Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Issue Tool

create_issue_tool

Creates a new issue in a GitLab project using a project ID or path and title, with optional labels, assignees, milestone, description, and confidentiality settings.

Instructions

Create a new issue in a GitLab project.

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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesIssue title
labelsNoComma-separated label names
project_idYesProject ID or path
descriptionNoIssue description (Markdown)
assignee_idsNoUser IDs to assign
confidentialNoWhether the issue is confidential (default: false)
milestone_idNoMilestone ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / assignee_ids / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / milestone_id / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the full behavioral burden. It only implies a mutation via 'Create' but omits required permissions, side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible—critical context for a write tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though the terse phrasing leaves little room for necessary context.

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 seven parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While it benefits from a full output schema (so return values need not be explained), it still lacks essential behavioral details like permissions, side effects, and error handling.

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 seven parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when coverage is high.

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 ('Create') and resource ('issue') within a scope ('GitLab project'), clearly distinguishing it from update_issue_tool and list_issues_tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from create_issue_note_tool or other create siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools