Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gitlab_accept_merge_request

Merge a GitLab merge request by supplying the project ID or namespace path and MR IID. Optionally squash commits, remove the source branch, or set a custom merge commit message.

Instructions

Accepts/merges an MR (PUT /merge_requests/:iid/merge).

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "mergeRequestIid": "<mergeRequestIid>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_accept_merge_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
squashNo
projectIdYesNumeric ID or path with namespace, e.g. group/project.
mergeRequestIidYes
mergeCommitMessageNo
shouldRemoveSourceBranchNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that this is a merge action via PUT, but does not mention side effects like source branch deletion, merge commit behavior, permission requirements, or failure conditions.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint for reference. Minor redundancy in 'Accepts/merges' prevents a perfect score, but there is no wasted content.

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 mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about optional parameters, expected behavior, and any post-conditions, making it incomplete for safe autonomous invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain squash, mergeCommitMessage, or shouldRemoveSourceBranch, leaving the agent without the information needed to set them appropriately.

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

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Accepts/merges an MR' and includes the exact API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request and gitlab_save_merge_request without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_save_merge_request or gitlab_create_merge_request_note. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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