Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

publish_draft_note

Publish a single draft note on a GitLab merge request to make it visible. Provide project ID, merge request IID, and draft note ID to change remote state.

Instructions

Publish a single draft note. 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
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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only openWorldHint set, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the call mutates remote GitLab state, requires project or group permission, and returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors rather than silently applying invalid requests. This meaningfully compensates for the lack of readOnly/destructive hints and does not contradict the annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The tool purpose is front-loaded and useful, and the mutation/error-behavior content earns its place. However, several phrases are boilerplate, such as 'Use this for the specific operation described' and 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.' It is reasonably sized, but not every sentence adds meaningful information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple four-parameter mutation, the description covers the core behavioral contract: remote state change, permissions, and error behavior. It does not describe what a successful publish returns, and because there is no output schema, that gap is left uncovered by the structured data. The generic boilerplate also weakens its completeness for this specific tool.

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 every parameter and the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description mostly repeats generic guidance about numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths, and the references to group_id and 'pagination fields do not cleanly match this schema. It adds no real semantic value beyond the schema.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a single draft note.' The word 'single' distinguishes it from bulk publishing, and the lifecycle framing clarifies this is the publish action rather than create/update/delete. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like bulk_publish_draft_notes, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

The description gives only generic routing advice: 'Use this for the specific operation described; choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action.' It never names the concrete alternative for publishing multiple draft notes or for editing a draft note first. The intended usage is implied by the operation, but not made explicit for the sibling set.

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