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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Merge Request Tool

create_merge_request_tool

Creates a new GitLab merge request from a source branch into a target branch, with title, description, labels, assignees, reviewers, and milestone options.

Instructions

Create a new merge request.

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>",
      "source_branch": "<source_branch>",
      "target_branch": "<target_branch>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_merge_request_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesMR title
labelsNoComma-separated label names
project_idYesProject ID or path
descriptionNoMR description (Markdown)
assignee_idsNoUser IDs to assign
milestone_idNoMilestone ID
reviewer_idsNoUser IDs to review
source_branchYesSource branch name (must already exist)
target_branchYesTarget branch name
remove_source_branchNoRemove source branch after merge (default: false)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / reviewer_ids / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
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 and adds almost nothing: it does not disclose required permissions, conflict/error behavior on duplicate MRs, or that the operation is a persistent write. The single word 'new' is the only implicit signal that this is a state-mutating creation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with zero waste and fully front-loaded, which is good structure. But brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy, so it earns a middling rather than high score.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter mutating tool with no annotations; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits validation constraints, permissions, and failure modes an agent would need before invoking it. It is far too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 every one of the 10 parameters (project_id, source_branch, target_branch, title, labels, assignee_ids, reviewer_ids, milestone_id, remove_source_branch, description) is already documented with its format. The description adds no semantic hints beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline case.

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

Purpose3/5

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 merge request), so the agent knows the operation at a glance. However, it is essentially an expansion of the tool name/title with nothing added, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings in the same family such as update_merge_request_tool or create_mr_note_tool.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the source branch must already exist, which only surfaces in the schema), and no indication of what happens if an equivalent MR already exists.

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