Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_issue_note

Add a comment to a GitLab issue by specifying the project ID, issue IID, and the comment body.

Instructions

이슈 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>",
      "issue_iid": "<issue_iid>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes코멘트 내용
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
issue_iidYes이슈 내부 번호
project_idYes프로젝트 ID 또는 경로

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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or any operational details, leaving the agent with virtually no behavioral insight.

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 concise but under-specified. It consists of a single phrase that does not convey enough context, thus failing the balance between conciseness and informativeness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no context on usage, behavior, or outcomes, making it inadequate for effective agent guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not compensatory.

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?

The description '이슈 코멘트 작성' is a Korean translation of the tool name 'create_issue_note', essentially restating the name without adding any specific action or resource details beyond what the name already conveys. It qualifies as a tautology.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_mr_note or list_issue_notes. It lacks any context about preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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