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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Mr Discussions Tool

list_mr_discussions_tool
Read-only

Retrieves threaded discussions and inline code review comments on a GitLab merge request, enabling review tracking and feedback analysis.

Instructions

List discussions (threaded comments) on a merge request.

Discussions include inline code review comments with file position data.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_mr_discussions_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
per_pageNoResults per page, max 100 (default: 20)
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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of returned content (threaded structure, inline comments carrying file position data), but says nothing about pagination limits or ordering beyond what the schema's page/per_page fields already imply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action; the second sentence carries genuinely useful disambiguation rather than padding. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With annotations, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The main omission is any routing signal relative to list_mr_notes_tool, which the large sibling set makes a realistic source of mis-selection.

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% and all four parameters are documented in the schema, including defaults and the max-100 limit on per_page. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 ('List discussions (threaded comments) on a merge request') and clarifies that discussions are threaded rather than flat notes, which implicitly separates it from list_mr_notes_tool. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical 'threaded comments' plus the note about inline code review comments with file position data implies the use case (reviewing threaded review feedback), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-list_mr_notes_tool guidance despite that sibling being the obvious alternative.

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