gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

reply_mr_discussion

Reply to a discussion thread on a GitLab merge request by specifying the project, MR, discussion ID, and response body.

Instructions

Discussion 답글 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>",
      "discussion_id": "<discussion_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_mr_discussion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	답글 내용
`mr_iid`	Yes	MR iid
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`project_id`	Yes	프로젝트 ID
`discussion_id`	Yes	Discussion 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 are provided, and the description gives no information about side effects, auth requirements, error behavior, or response format; the tool appears to perform a write operation but lacks transparency.

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 short phrase, which is concise but too sparse; it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or examples.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (4 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description does not provide sufficient context about the operation's effects, return values, or usage constraints.

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 baseline is 3. The descriptions are minimal (e.g., '답글 내용' for body, 'MR iid'), adding little extra meaning beyond field names.

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 'Discussion 답글 작성' clearly states the action (reply) and the object (discussion), but it is in Korean and does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_mr_discussion.

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 create_mr_discussion or list_mr_discussions; no context on prerequisites or conditions.

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