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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Mr Note Tool

create_mr_note_tool

Creates a Markdown note (comment) on a GitLab merge request using the project ID or path, merge request IID, and note body.

Instructions

Create a note (comment) on a 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>",
      "merge_request_iid": "<merge_request_iid>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_mr_note_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesNote content (Markdown)
project_idYesProject ID or path
merge_request_iidYesMerge request internal ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / merge_request_iid / minimum
      Added value: +1
  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 carries the full behavioral burden and does almost nothing with it. It says nothing about required permissions or token scope, whether the note is a plain comment versus a resolvable discussion thread, whether it triggers notifications, or whether the operation is idempotent — all material 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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the efficiency comes partly from omitting needed detail rather than from tight editing.

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 intrinsically simple (three params, all required, output schema present), so the returns and inputs are covered by structured fields. But with zero annotations on a mutation tool and an unresolved overlap with create_mr_discussion_tool, the description leaves one real decision and all safety context to the agent.

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% (project_id as ID or path, merge_request_iid as internal ID, body as Markdown), so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds only the implicit "body is the note text" mapping and no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a note (comment) on a merge request") and clarifies that a note equals a comment, which is genuinely useful vocabulary. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling create_mr_discussion_tool, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face with two MR-comment-creation tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing MR iid), and no reference to the closely related create_mr_discussion_tool or list_mr_notes_tool. The agent must infer entirely from the name which MR-comment tool to pick.

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