Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_issue_notes

Retrieve all comments on a specific GitLab issue by providing project ID and issue IID. Supports pagination and instance selection.

Instructions

이슈 코멘트 목록 조회

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_issue_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo페이지 번호 (1부터)
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
per_pageNo페이지당 개수 (기본 20)
issue_iidYes이슈 내부 번호
project_idYes프로젝트 ID 또는 경로

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavior such as pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or whether all notes are returned. The one-line translation only states the action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Extremely concise single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it may be too terse, omitting useful context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the concept of an 'issue note' or the pagination behavior, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 '이슈 코멘트 목록 조회' clearly states the action (list) and resource (issue comments), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_issues' and 'create_issue_note'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'list_mr_notes' for merge requests.

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 such as 'list_issues' or 'create_issue_note'. No prerequisites or context for use are 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