GitLab MCP Code Review
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| GITLAB_HOST | Yes | The GitLab host URL (e.g., gitlab.com) | |
| GITLAB_TOKEN | Yes | Your GitLab personal access token with API scopes (read_api, api) |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| fetch_code_review_rulesA | |
| fetch_merge_requestA | |
| compare_versionsC | |
| add_merge_request_commentB | |
| add_merge_request_discussionA | |
| reply_to_merge_request_discussionC | |
| resolve_merge_request_discussionB | |
| delete_merge_request_discussionC | |
| approve_merge_requestC | |
| unapprove_merge_requestB | |
| get_project_merge_requestsB | |
| search_projectsC | |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 12 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes focused on merge request management and code review workflows, with clear boundaries between actions like adding comments, approving, and comparing versions. However, there is some potential overlap between 'add_merge_request_comment' and 'add_merge_request_discussion' as both involve commenting, though the latter is more specific to file positions.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as 'add_merge_request_comment', 'approve_merge_request', and 'fetch_code_review_rules'. All tools use snake_case and maintain a predictable structure, making them easy to parse and understand.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for a GitLab code review server, covering essential operations like fetching merge requests, managing discussions, approvals, and project searches. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, fitting the domain appropriately.
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for code review tasks, including fetching rules, listing and fetching merge requests, adding and managing discussions, and handling approvals. A minor gap is the lack of tools for directly modifying merge requests (e.g., updating or merging them), but core review workflows are well-supported.