Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitLab MCP Server

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create Note

create_note

Add a comment or internal note to a GitLab issue or merge request by specifying project path, IID, and Markdown body; requires authentication.

Instructions

Add a comment/note to an issue or merge request (requires user authentication)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iidYesIssue or merge request IID
bodyYesNote body (supports Markdown)
internalNoWhether the note is internal/confidential (only visible to project members)
projectPathYesFull path of the project (e.g., "group/project-name")
noteableTypeYesType of item to add a note to
userCredentialsNoYour GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "accessToken": {
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "gitlabUrl": {
-        "format": "uri",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "accessToken": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "gitlabUrl": {
+        "format": "uri",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / description
      Previous value: -"Your GitLab credentials (optional - uses shared token if not provided)"New value: +"Your GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)"
  3. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds the authentication requirement, which is valuable. It does not flag the practical consequence of non-idempotency (calling twice creates duplicate notes) or what happens on failure, which for a create tool would be genuinely useful.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the auth caveat immediately adjacent to the action. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the usage distinctions an agent would benefit from.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and that auth is needed. It omits what the tool returns (note ID? body?) and the duplicate/retry behavior implied by non-idempotency, which leaves a moderate gap.

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%, including the notable 'internal/confidential' visibility semantics and the noteableType enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the issue/MR targeting hint, which the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('comment/note') plus the two target types (issue or merge request), which is enough to separate it from create_issue, create_merge_request and get_notes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_note, but the 'add' framing makes the difference readable.

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?

It adds a real prerequisite ('requires user authentication'), which is useful context for an agent. However there is no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like update_note or delete_note, and no note on how to choose between issue and merge_request targets beyond the enum in the schema.

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