GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_comment

Destructive

Add a comment to an issue with project, issue ID, and message. Use it to record updates, feedback, or questions on a GitFlic issue.

Instructions

Add a comment to an issue.

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>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_issue_comment"
  }
}

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.
`message`	Yes
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already identify a mutating, open-world, non-idempotent operation with destructiveHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether each call always creates a new comment, what permissions are needed, or what response is returned, and it does not clarify the unusually strong destructive signal.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The single sentence is direct, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Its brevity is readable but comes at the cost of useful invocation details, so it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a four-parameter mutating tool with three required inputs, only 25% schema description coverage, and no output schema, one generic sentence is insufficient for confident invocation. The main gaps are identifier semantics, issue-versus-merge-request routing, and behavioral or result expectations, although raw's schema description partially addresses response behavior.

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?

Only raw is documented in the schema, and the description does not compensate for the three undocumented operational parameters. It does not explain whether project is a slug or owner/project path, whether id is an issue number or internal identifier, or what content and formatting message accepts.

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 clear action ("Add"), resource ("a comment"), and target ("an issue"), so the basic operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish posting a new issue comment from commenting on a merge request or editing an existing issue comment.

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?

Posting a new issue comment is implied as the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not route merge-request discussions to gitflic_mr_comment, existing-comment changes to gitflic_issue_comments_edit, or explain prerequisites for identifying the issue.

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

Deploy Server