Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

resolve_merge_request_thread

Marks an existing merge request review thread as resolved, closing completed discussions and keeping review feedback organized.

Instructions

Resolve a thread on a merge request. Mark an existing review thread resolved. Use update_merge_request_discussion_note to change note text.

Input 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It implies a state mutation on a review thread and what specifically changes (resolution status), which is useful, but it omits permission requirements, reversibility, and the fact that resolved=false can unresolve a thread. For a mutation tool with no destructive/readOnly annotations, that is a notable gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a targeted disambiguation pointer. No redundant restatement of the title or filler.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no output schema and only an openWorldHint annotation, so the description should do more: it does not cover the unresolve case, permission/auth expectations, or what the call returns. Adequate to invoke correctly, but incomplete for a state-changing operation.

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 all five parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; notably it does not clarify that the boolean 'resolved' also supports unresolving when false, which is the one place it could have added value.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a thread on a merge request') and reinforces it with 'Mark an existing review thread resolved.' It also explicitly names the sibling tool to use for a different operation (editing note text), so an agent can distinguish it from update_merge_request_discussion_note without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly states the use case (marking an existing thread resolved) and routes the agent to update_merge_request_discussion_note for note-text editing, which is a concrete alternative. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., what happens if the thread is already resolved, or permission requirements), so it is not a full 5.

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