Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab mcp

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_issue_note

Adds a note to an existing GitLab issue, optionally replying to a discussion thread. Use it to post comments or replies without changing issue fields.

Instructions

Add a note to an issue, optionally replying to a discussion thread. Add a note to an existing issue, optionally as a reply. Use update_issue for issue fields.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe content of the note or reply
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
issue_iidYesThe IID of an issue
created_atNoDate the note was created at (ISO 8601 format)
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
discussion_idNoThe ID of a thread. If provided, replies to that thread; otherwise creates a top-level note

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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.62
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "body",
-  "project_id",
-  "issue_iid"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid",
+  "body"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / discussion_id / description
      Previous value: -"The ID of a thread"New value: +"The ID of a thread. If provided, replies to that thread; otherwise creates a top-level note"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "body",
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It implies a write/append and clarifies the top-level vs threaded-reply outcome, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the note is editable/deletable, rate limits, or idempotency.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates ('optionally replying to a discussion thread' vs 'optionally as a reply'), so a third of the text is wasted. The routing sentence is well-placed at the end but the definition could be half its length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and six parameters, the description leaves return shape, the purpose of created_at and jmespath, and mutation side effects unaddressed. It is adequate for the core invocation but not complete for a create operation.

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 every parameter including discussion_id and jmespath. The description adds only the reply-vs-top-level distinction, which the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to an issue') plus the optional reply mode, and explicitly distinguishes itself from update_issue. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other issue-adjacent siblings like list_issue_discussions or get_issue.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Names the alternative tool (update_issue) and the condition that selects it ('for issue fields'), which is genuine routing guidance. It lacks any statement of prerequisites or when not to add a note, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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