gitlab-mcp

gitlab_mr_versions

Read-only

List a merge request's diff versions, newest first, to debug comment positions when line comments are misaligned; regular line comments resolve positions automatically.

Instructions

List the diff versions of a merge request, newest first as GitLab returns them. Only needed to debug comment positions - gitlab_mr_comment_on_line resolves them itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`iid`	Yes	project-scoped internal id - the number in !123 for a merge request or #123 for an issue, not the global id
`page`	No	1-based page number; see pagination.nextPage in the result
`perPage`	No	items per page, max 100 (GitLab default is 20)
`project`	Yes	project id ('42') or full path ('group/subgroup/app'); a path is URL-encoded for you

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`pagination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral context: results are ordered newest-first and reflect GitLab's native ordering. It does not add anything about pagination or auth, but those gaps are minor against the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the purpose stated before the usage caveat. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, ordering, and the routing decision. Nothing an agent needs to call this niche debug tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents iid, project, page and perPage in detail. The description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('diff versions of a merge request') and an ordering guarantee ('newest first as GitLab returns them'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling gitlab_mr_comment_on_line, which is the tool most likely to be confused with it.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when this is needed ('only needed to debug comment positions') and when it is not, naming the alternative that handles the common case itself. This is a textbook when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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