@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

merge_merge_request

Merge a merge request with optional dry-run mode to preview the action before executing. Customize commit message, squash commits, and delete source branch.

Instructions

Merge a merge request. dry_run=true by default.

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": "merge_merge_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID
`mr_iid`	Yes	MR IID to merge
`merge_commit_message`	No	Custom merge commit message
`squash`	No	Squash commits into one
`should_remove_source_branch`	No	Delete source branch after merge
`dry_run`	No	Dry 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.

First observedv1.8.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that dry_run defaults to true, implying a safety preview. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like conflict handling, branch deletion impact, or commit message effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place due to missing important context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (merge with options like squash, source branch removal) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens upon merge, post-merge state, or return value.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by highlighting the dry_run default and its safety implication. Other parameters are left to schema descriptions.

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 the action ('Merge a merge request'), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_merge_request' or 'rebase_merge_request'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., should merging be done after approval? When to set dry_run to false?). The description only mentions the default dry_run behavior but no usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server