Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mark_todo_done

Mark a specific GitLab to-do item as done by its ID, updating remote state and requiring appropriate project or group permissions.

Instructions

Mark a GitLab to-do item as done. Use this for the specific operation described; choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action. 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
idYesThe ID of the to-do item
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.

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. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description states that the tool mutates remote GitLab state, requires project or group permission, and surfaces validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors rather than silently succeeding. This exceeds the sparse openWorldHint annotation with actionable behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose sentence is front-loaded, but two of the four sentences are boilerplate: the generic sibling-selection instruction and the parameter guidance about identifiers and pagination that do not apply to this tool's schema. The instructions are not tailored enough to earn their place.

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 single-id mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, state change, authorization prerequisite, and error behavior. It does not describe the return payload or idempotency, but those are comparatively minor for this simple action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both id and jmespath at 100%, so the baseline is 3; however, the description adds no schema-level meaning and instead mentions project_id, group_id, and pagination fields that do not exist in this schema. This generic filler is potentially misleading.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource: mark a GitLab to-do item as done. It is clear which lifecycle action this covers, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling mark_all_todos_done, so it misses the top score.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It tells the agent to use the tool for the 'specific operation described' and to choose a sibling for a different resource or lifecycle action, which gives general guidance. It does not name mark_all_todos_done as the single-item vs bulk alternative, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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