Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitLab MCP Server

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Mark Todo Done

mark_todo_done
Idempotent

Mark a GitLab to-do item as done using its ID from list_my_todos, completing the task for the authenticated user.

Instructions

Mark a single to-do item as done for the authenticated user. Requires the todo's ID (numeric or full gid://gitlab/Todo/N form) from list_my_todos.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
todoIdYesTodo ID — accepts a bare numeric ID ("42") or a full gid ("gid://gitlab/Todo/42")
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. Addedv1.19.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered structurally. The description adds the single-item scope and the ID source, but says nothing about reversibility even though a restore_todo sibling exists — that is the one behavioral fact an agent most needs here.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite ID source trailing. Nothing is padded or repeated beyond what the schema requires.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, full safety annotations, and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that it does not tell the agent the change can be undone via restore_todo or what a failure (e.g. already-done todo) looks like.

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 todoId description already documents both the bare numeric and gid://gitlab/Todo/N forms. The description merely restates the accepted formats and adds no new meaning about the optional userCredentials fallback, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: "Mark a single to-do item as done for the authenticated user." The word "single" implicitly carves it out from the sibling mark_all_todos_done, but no sibling (e.g. mark_all_todos_done, restore_todo) is named, so an agent must still infer the boundary from the list.

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?

The phrase "from list_my_todos" gives a useful workflow pointer on where the required ID comes from, which is genuine routing value. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the inverse operation restore_todo, so the alternative-selection story is only implied.

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