gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

create_mr_note

Add a comment to a GitLab merge request. Specify the project ID, merge request IID, and comment body.

Instructions

MR 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>",
      "mr_iid": "<mr_iid>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_mr_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	코멘트 내용
`mr_iid`	Yes	MR iid
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`project_id`	Yes	프로젝트 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate, or authorization requirements.

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?

Extremely concise (single phrase). No wasted words, but could benefit from a slightly longer description to provide context. Appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

Lacks a complete description of tool behavior, return value, or error conditions. With no output schema and minimal description, the agent lacks key information for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no further semantic value beyond the schema, but the baseline is adequate.

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?

Description 'MR 일반 코멘트 작성' clearly specifies the action (create) and resource (MR comment). Differentiates from sibling discussion tools by explicitly stating '일반 코멘트' (general comment).

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 like create_mr_discussion. Agent must infer from tool name and sibling context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.