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

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_mr_notes

Read-only

Retrieve all comments on a specific merge request by providing the project ID and MR IID.

Instructions

List comments on a merge request.

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>",
      "mr_iid": "<mr_iid>"
    },
    "name": "list_mr_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
mr_iidYesMR IID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds no additional behavioral details such as whether pagination, ordering, or filtering is supported. For a list tool, more context on the output scope is expected.

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?

The description is very concise at a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded for a simple list operation.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fails to specify what fields or data structure the returned comments contain. For a list tool, this omission reduces completeness, as agents need to know the format of the results.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so both parameters (project_id, mr_iid) are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'List comments on a merge request' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (comments on a merge request). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like list_issue_notes and list_epic_notes, though the tool name itself provides some distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_mr_note, update_mr_note, or delete_mr_note. There are no indications of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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