gitlab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_merge_request

Create a merge request by specifying project, source and target branches, title, and optional description. Select a GitLab instance if needed.

Instructions

MR 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>",
      "source_branch": "<source_branch>",
      "target_branch": "<target_branch>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_merge_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	MR 제목
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`project_id`	Yes	프로젝트 ID
`description`	No	MR 설명
`source_branch`	Yes	소스 브랜치
`target_branch`	Yes	타깃 브랜치

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must expose behavioral traits, but it only states 'MR 생성'. It fails to disclose that this tool creates a new merge request, what permissions are needed, what the side effects are (e.g., state changes), or what the response contains. The description adds zero behavioral detail.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The description is a single word in Korean, which is severely under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings. It is not appropriately sized; it sacrifices all information for brevity.

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 complexity (6 params, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, return value, constraints, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no useful context.

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 each parameter already has a description in the schema (though minimal). The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description 'MR 생성' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'create_merge_request' in Korean. It provides no additional specificity about what an MR is or distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like update_merge_request or approve_mr.

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 update_merge_request, approve_mr, or list_merge_requests. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, workflow position, 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.