Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_issue_link

Link two GitLab issues by creating a relationship between them. Specify the source and target issue IDs and set the link type to relates_to, blocks, or is_blocked_by.

Instructions

Create an issue link between two issues. Use this for a new resource or action; choose the corresponding update or edit tool when the resource already exists. 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
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
issue_iidYesThe internal ID of a project's issue
link_typeNoThe type of the relation, defaults to relates_to
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
target_issue_iidYesThe internal ID of a target project's issue
target_project_idYesThe ID or URL-encoded path of a target project

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. Addedv2.1.45
  3. Removedv2.1.43
  4. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid",
+  "target_project_id",
+  "target_issue_iid"
+]
  9. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description does valuable work by stating that the call 'changes remote GitLab state,' requires permissions, and that GitLab returns validation/conflict/permission/rate-limit errors rather than silently accepting invalid requests. It does not describe idempotence or the side effect on existing links, but the error and permission context is strong.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then supplies when-to-use guidance and side-effect/error behavior. The final 'use required identifiers and pagination fields' sentence is slightly boilerplate and references a pagination concept not reflected in the schema, costing a top score.

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 state-changing create tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, permissions, and failure behavior. It could add what happens on success or how defaults like link_type behave, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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?

The schema already describes 100% of parameters, so the description is not required to re-document them. It adds only a generic reminder to use numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths, which mostly restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names a precise action and resource: 'Create an issue link between two issues.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_issue_link, delete_issue_link, create_issue, and update_issue, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use this tool for a new resource or action and to choose the corresponding update/edit tool when the resource already exists. That is an explicit when/when-not rule plus a pointer to alternatives, exceeding the minimum.

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