Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_commit_comment

Add a comment to a GitLab commit by providing project ID, commit SHA, and note content.

Instructions

커밋 일반 코멘트 작성

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>",
      "sha": "<sha>",
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "create_commit_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shaYes커밋 SHA
noteYes코멘트 내용
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
project_idYes프로젝트 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description solely indicates creation ('작성') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or reversibility. The one-word description is insufficient for an agent to understand runtime implications.

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 extremely concise at one short sentence, front-loading the key action. It could be considered efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing important details. Still, it earns its place by stating the purpose.

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 no output schema or annotations, and a moderate task with 4 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a 'general comment' is, how it differs from a discussion, or any return behavior. The agent would need to infer significant context from the tool name and schema alone.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, such as formatting notes or constraints on instance. It merely restates the tool's high-level action.

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 '커밋 일반 코멘트 작성' clearly indicates it creates a general comment on a commit. The term '일반 코멘트' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create_commit_discussion' which handles discussion threads. However, it is minimal and lacks explicit verb-resource structure.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., create_commit_discussion) is provided. There is no mention 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