Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

resolve_merge_request_thread

Mark a merge request review thread as resolved by its discussion ID. Requires project, MR IID, and resolve permission; returns the updated discussion or an error if the thread or access is missing.

Instructions

Resolve a thread on a merge request. Use this to mark an existing merge request review thread resolved; use update_merge_request_discussion_note when the note text itself must change. The operation changes review state, requires permission to resolve discussions, and returns the updated discussion or a missing-thread/permission error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
resolvedYesWhether to resolve the thread
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
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "resolved"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "discussion_id",
+  "resolved"
+]
  7. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the operation changes review state, requires permission to resolve discussions, and returns the updated discussion or a missing-thread/permission error. This discloses side effects, authorization needs, and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, purpose first, then usage distinctioncomm and behavior/error summary. Every clause is informative with no filler. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schemacorpor, the description explains the return value and error cases. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, permissions, state-change impact, and failure modes. Required parameters are all schema-documented, and optional jmespath needs no special explanation. Highly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds general context (review thread, state change) but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides for project_id, merge_request_iid, discussion_id, or resolved. It is adequate but not compensatory.

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 states a specific action (resolve), a precise resource (existing merge request review thread), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling update_merge_request_discussion_note. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 when to use this tool (to mark a thread resolved) and when to use the alternative update_merge_request_discussion_note (when note text must change). This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the exact sibling tool. No inference required.

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