Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_issue

Create a GitLab issue in a specified project by providing title, description, labels, and assignees.

Instructions

이슈 생성

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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes이슈 제목
labelsNo레이블 (쉼표 구분)
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
project_idYes프로젝트 ID 또는 경로
descriptionNo이슈 설명
assignee_idsNo담당자 ID 배열

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, but the description provides no behavioral information such as side effects, permissions, or destructive actions. The agent has no insight beyond the name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (two words), which is underspecified rather than concise. It fails to provide value beyond the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description completely fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description is '이슈 생성' which translates to 'Create issue', a direct tautology of the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_issue or list_issues.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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