GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_close

DestructiveIdempotent

Close a GitFlic issue by specifying its project and ID; also serves as a shortcut for editing the issue status to CLOSED.

Instructions

Close an issue (shortcut: edit with --status CLOSED).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_issue_close"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds real value by revealing that closing is implemented as a status change rather than a deletion, implying the issue record survives. It does not say whether the action is reversible or what it returns.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the clarifying mechanism placed in parentheses. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the annotations carry the mutation semantics, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it leaves the two undocumented required parameters and the reversibility question unaddressed for a destructive, open-world operation.

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?

Schema coverage is only 33%: only 'raw' carries a description. The description does not explain 'project' or 'id' (for example, whether 'id' is the numeric issue number or an internal identifier) and does not add any parameter meaning 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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('Close an issue'), which clearly separates it from siblings such as gitflic_issue_edit, gitflic_issue_delete, and gitflic_issue_reopen. The parenthetical further clarifies the mechanism, though it never explicitly states that this tool is not a deletion.

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 note 'shortcut: edit with --status CLOSED' tells the agent that this call is preferable to manually editing status, which is useful routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention that gitflic_issue_reopen reverses this action, and no mention of permissions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server