Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_merge_request_discussion_note

Add a reply to an existing merge request discussion thread on GitLab, using the thread ID and content to post a note.

Instructions

Add a new discussion note to an existing merge request thread. Use this to reply inside an existing merge request discussion; use create_merge_request_thread to start a new thread and create_merge_request_note for a top-level note. The operation creates remote review content, requires note permission, and returns the new note or a missing-discussion/position/permission error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe content of the note or reply
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
created_atNoDate the note was created at (ISO 8601 format)
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
discussion_idYesThe ID of a thread
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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.62
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "body",
-  "project_id",
-  "merge_request_iid",
-  "discussion_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "discussion_id",
+  "body"
+]
  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
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "body",
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "discussion_id"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint, leaving behavioral disclosure to the description. The description clearly states that the operation creates remote review content, requires note permission, and returns either the new note or specific error types. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotation alone communicates.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, sibling differentiation, and behavioral/auth/error disclosure. The most important usage constraint is front-loaded and there is no unnecessary repetition of schema or annotation content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description still covers the return value and error cases. Combined with full schema descriptions for all six parameters, the tool definition gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds contextual framing like 'existing' and 'reply', but it does not add substantive parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('a new discussion note to an existing merge request thread'). It also explicitly contrasts the tool with create_merge_request_thread and create_merge_request_note, so an agent can distinguish it from its nearest siblings without inspecting 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?

The description states exactly when to use this tool: to reply inside an existing merge request discussion. It names the alternatives for starting a new thread and for creating a top-level note, giving clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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