Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_merge_request_note

Add a note or reply to a merge request on GitLab. Use this to post new comments, while edits require the update tool. Requires project ID, merge request IID, and body.

Instructions

Add a new note to a merge request. 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
bodyYesThe content of the note or reply
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
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"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "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"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool changes remote GitLab state, requires permissions, and returns validation/conflict/permission/rate-limit errors. This goes beyond the openWorldHint annotation, which only indicates the world is open. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes necessary usage guidance and error behavior without excessive detail. Slightly dense but each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: action, usage, permissions, errors, and identifier format. It doesn't explain return values, but with no output schema and a simple note-creation operation, this is acceptable.

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 all parameters. The description adds guidance on providing numeric ID or URL-encoded path for project_id/group_id, which is useful but not extensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a new note to a merge request') and distinguishes it from update/edit tools for existing resources. It also differentiates from sibling tools like create_merge_request_discussion_note and create_issue_note by specifying the merge request context.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for a new resource/action and to choose the corresponding update or edit tool when the resource already exists. It also mentions required permissions and error behavior, giving clear context for when to use this tool.

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