Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bulk_publish_draft_notes

Publish all draft notes on a merge request in one action. Optionally set reviewer state or add a summary note, even when no drafts exist.

Instructions

Publish all draft notes for a merge request. Optionally sets reviewer_state and posts a summary note (GitLab 19.2+). Can set reviewer_state even with no drafts. Use this for the specific operation described; choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action. It changes remote GitLab state and requires the necessary project or group permission; GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying an invalid request. When project_id or group_id is accepted, provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema; use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoSummary note body to post on the merge request (GitLab 19.2+)
internalNoIf true, the summary note is internal (GitLab 19.2+, default false)
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
reviewer_stateNoSet reviewer review state after publishing (GitLab 19.2+). Does not record a formal approval. Works even with no draft notes.
merge_request_iidYesThe IID of a merge request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.43
    • addedInput schema / properties / internal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, the summary note is internal (GitLab 19.2+, default false)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / note
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Summary note body to post on the merge request (GitLab 19.2+)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewer_state
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set reviewer review state after publishing (GitLab 19.2+). Does not record a formal approval. Works even with no draft notes.",
+  "enum": [
+    "requested_changes",
+    "reviewed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only provide openWorldHint=true, which is a weak signal. The description adds valuable context: it changes remote GitLab state, requires permissions, and returns validation/conflict/permission/rate-limit errors instead of silently failing. It also discloses the non-obvious behavior of setting reviewer_state without drafts. This goes beyond the annotation and helps agents anticipate side effects.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by optional features, then guidance and behavioral notes. It is not excessively long, but the sentence 'Use this for the specific operation described; choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action' is somewhat redundant and adds little information. Overall, it is reasonably tight and structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, optional parameters, permission requirements, and error behavior. It does not describe the success response, but this is not critical given the clear operation and the presence of many sibling tools with similar patterns. The description is sufficient for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's only parameter guidance is a generic instruction to provide project_id as numeric ID or URL-encoded path and to follow schema exactly. This adds minimal value beyond the schema and does not give per-parameter insights, so it meets the baseline but not more.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Publish all draft notes for a merge request', clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. The use of 'all' and the tool name 'bulk_publish' distinguish it from the sibling 'publish_draft_note' (singular). It also mentions optional actions (reviewer_state, summary note) without obscuring the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The guidance to 'choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action' is too generic and does not name any specific alternative (e.g., publish_draft_note for a single note). It does mention the specific condition 'Can set reviewer_state even with no drafts', which is a useful behavior but not a tool-selection guideline. Overall, it lacks explicit when-to-use versus sibling distinctions.

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