Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_close_merge_request

Close a merge request without merging by setting its status to closed. Provide the project slug and merge request ID.

Instructions

Close a merge request without merging. Sets status to "closed".

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "mergeRequestId": "<mergeRequestId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_close_merge_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNoIf true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)
mergeRequestIdYesUUID of the merge request to close

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only states the status change to 'closed'. Does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or other side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple mutation tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action and outcome adequately. However, it could mention the response format or any prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already describes all parameters. Description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond what schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (close), resource (merge request), and outcome (status set to 'closed'). Distinguished from merging by stating 'without merging', contrasting with sibling haops_merge_merge_request.

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?

Implies usage when needing to close a merge request without merging, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like haops_merge_merge_request or haops_reopen_merge_request, or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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