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

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

close_issue

Close a GitLab issue with a dry-run preview to verify before executing. Set dry_run=false to confirm closure.

Instructions

Fermer une issue. 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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "issue_iid": "<issue_iid>"
    },
    "name": "close_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesID du projet
issue_iidYesNumero de l'issue (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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the dry_run behavior, which is key to safe execution. Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false), consistent with description. No contradiction.

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 in French, directly to the point. No fluff or redundant information.

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 close action with a dry_run safety mechanism, the description is adequate. Lacks details on return format or what the preview contains, but not critical for low complexity tool.

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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage). Description adds a summary but does not provide new information beyond the schema.

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 'Fermer une issue' (close an issue), specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like close_epic, close_milestone, update_issue, and reopen_issue.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on dry_run parameter: default true for preview, set false after confirmation. Does not mention when to avoid using this tool or alternatives like update_issue to change status.

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