Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_reopen_merge_request

Reopens a closed merge request by setting its status to open. Requires project slug and merge request ID.

Instructions

Reopen a previously closed merge request. Sets status back to "open".

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_reopen_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 reopen

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states status change, no info on permissions, side effects, or restrictions on reopening.

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?

Single concise sentence with no wasted words, but could include more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Simple operation but lacks usage context and behavioral details. No output schema, so description should compensate but does not.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'reopen', the resource 'merge request', and the effect 'sets status back to open'. It distinguishes from the sibling haops_close_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 Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not mention prerequisites or alternatives like haops_merge_merge_request.

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