Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

close_epic

Close a GitLab epic with a dry-run preview before final execution.

Instructions

Fermer un epic. Par defaut dry_run=true : retourne un apercu sans fermer. Passer dry_run=false apres confirmation.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "epic_iid": "<epic_iid>"
    },
    "name": "close_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesID ou chemin URL du groupe GitLab (ex: '42' ou 'wanadev/kp1'). Si vous n'avez que le nom, appelez d'abord list_groups pour trouver le chemin exact.
epic_iidYesNumero de l'epic (IID) a fermer
dry_runNoDry run mode (default: true). When true, returns a preview of the action without executing it. Set to false only after user confirmation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming write operation. The description adds the dry_run preview behavior, providing safety context. It does not detail potential side effects of closing an epic, but the preview mode mitigates risk.

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, efficient and front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. Ideal conciseness for agent readability.

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?

No output schema, but description hints at return for dry_run (preview). For false case, return not specified, but tool is simple. Adequate given no complex output or nested objects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds workflow context beyond schema: default dry_run=true and instruction to set false after confirmation, adding value.

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 'Fermer un epic' (close an epic), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reopen_epic and update_epic by explicitly naming the action and resource.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains the dry_run parameter usage: default preview, and instruction to set dry_run=false after confirmation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear for closing epics.

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