Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_mr_discussion

Add inline comments on specific lines of a merge request diff to facilitate code review discussions.

Instructions

MR 인라인 코멘트(Discussion) 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>",
      "mr_iid": "<mr_iid>",
      "body": "<body>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "new_line": "<new_line>",
      "base_sha": "<base_sha>",
      "head_sha": "<head_sha>",
      "start_sha": "<start_sha>"
    },
    "name": "create_mr_discussion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes코멘트 내용
pathYes대상 파일 경로 (new_path)
mr_iidYesMR iid
base_shaYesdiff_refs.base_sha
head_shaYesdiff_refs.head_sha
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
new_lineYes대상 라인 번호
start_shaYesdiff_refs.start_sha
project_idYes프로젝트 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details such as idempotency, permission requirements, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single phrase, which is concise but lacks structure or additional sentences. It does not waste words but is too minimal to be considered well-organized.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (8 required) and no output schema or annotations. The description fails to explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., SHA values) or how to construct a valid discussion, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for adequate schema coverage.

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 states 'MR 인라인 코멘트(Discussion) 작성' which clearly indicates the tool creates an inline comment on a merge request. It distinguishes from siblings like create_mr_note (general note) and reply_mr_discussion (reply), but does not explicitly differentiate them in the description.

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., create_mr_note vs create_mr_discussion). No prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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