Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_draft_note

Destructive

Delete a draft note from a GitLab merge request to remove unneeded feedback before finalizing. Requires project ID, merge request IID, and draft note ID.

Instructions

Delete a draft note. Use this only after verifying the target; choose a get or list tool first when you need to inspect state without changing it. It changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible; it requires the necessary project or group permission and returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors. 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.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
draft_note_idYesThe ID of the draft note
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. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11
  5. Removedv2.1.10
  6. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "draft_note_id"
+]
  7. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate destructiveHint and openWorldHint. The description adds crucial behavioral context: 'may be irreversible,' 'requires the necessary project or group permission,' and 'returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors.' This goes beyond what annotations convey, directly informing the agent of risks and error handling.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence carries weight: purpose, safety, usage, and parameter guidance. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes relevant caveats. Slightly verbose due to the combined guidance, but no filler.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, permissions, error types, and parameter usage. It doesn't specify the success response format (e.g., 204 No Content), but that's a minor gap given the other rich context. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it safely and 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 covers all 4 parameters at 100% coverage, so the schema already documents each field. The description adds a general note to 'provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema' and 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented,' which is helpful but doesn't elaborate beyond the schema. 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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Delete a draft note') and explicitly contrasts it with get/list tools for inspection. It distinguishes from siblings like update_draft_note and publish_draft_note without needing to name them, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this only after verifying the target' and 'choose a get or list tool first when you need to inspect state without changing it.' It also mentions prerequisites (project/group permission) and the irreversible nature, covering both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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