Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_merge_request_discussion_note

Destructive

Delete a discussion note on a merge request to clean up comments. Provide project, merge request IID, discussion ID, and note ID, and verify the target first because deletion is irreversible.

Instructions

Delete a discussion note on a merge request. 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
note_idYesThe ID of a thread note
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
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. 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",
+  "discussion_id",
+  "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?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description states that the operation 'changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible,' requiring permissions and returning specific error classes. This adds meaningful context about side effects and failure modes that annotations alone do not convey.

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 purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. The final sentence contains some generic boilerplate about 'pagination fields' that is not fully relevant to the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 destructive nature and the absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage verification, permissions, irreversibility, and error types. It does not describe success return values, but for a delete operation this is a minor omission amid strong contextual coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds guidance on project_id format but mentions group_id and pagination fields that do not appear in the schema, introducing a slight mismatch. Overall, the description contributes little beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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 'Delete a discussion note on a merge request,' stating a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like delete_merge_request_note or update_merge_request_discussion_note by narrowing to the discussion-note 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?

The description explicitly instructs to verify the target first and to choose a get or list tool when inspection is needed without changing state. It also names the permission requirement and outlines the error types, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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