Skip to main content
Glama
harshmaur

GitLab MCP Server

by harshmaur

create_merge_request_note

Add a note to a merge request discussion thread to provide feedback, ask questions, or continue conversations about code changes.

Instructions

Add a new note to an existing merge request thread

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
merge_request_iidYesThe IID of a merge request
discussion_idYesThe ID of a thread
bodyYesThe content of the note or reply
created_atNoDate the note was created at (ISO 8601 format)

Implementation Reference

  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for creating a note in an existing merge request discussion thread. This is likely the input validation schema for the 'create_merge_request_note' MCP tool.
    export const CreateMergeRequestNoteSchema = ProjectParamsSchema.extend({
      merge_request_iid: z.number().describe("The IID of a merge request"),
      discussion_id: z.string().describe("The ID of a thread"),
      body: z.string().describe("The content of the note or reply"),
      created_at: z.string().optional().describe("Date the note was created at (ISO 8601 format)"),
    });
  • Type definition derived from CreateMergeRequestNoteSchema for use in tool handlers or elsewhere.
    export type CreateMergeRequestNoteOptions = z.infer<typeof CreateMergeRequestNoteSchema>;
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add a new note') which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for this tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, or behavioral constraints. While the schema documents parameters, the description lacks the contextual information needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in practice.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a new note') and target resource ('to an existing merge request thread'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_merge_request_thread' (creates new thread) and 'update_merge_request_note' (modifies existing note). However, it doesn't specify that this adds to a specific discussion/thread rather than creating a new one, which could be slightly more precise.

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 description implies usage context by specifying 'existing merge request thread' and 'new note', suggesting this is for adding to ongoing discussions rather than creating threads or updating notes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_merge_request_thread' (for starting new discussions) or 'update_merge_request_note' (for editing existing notes), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/harshmaur/gitlab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server