GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Updates an existing GitFlic issue's title, description, status, assignee, or labels so you can keep trackers current without opening the web UI.

Instructions

Edit an issue's title, description, status, assignee, or labels.

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_edit"
  }
}

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.
`label`	No	label uuid
`title`	No
`status`	No
`project`	Yes
`assignTo`	No	user uuid
`description`	No

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the field list: it does not state whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether edits are reversible, or what permissions are needed for a destructive mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is proportionate for the stated purpose. The brevity, though, shades into under-specification rather than genuine economy.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description omits partial-update semantics, the label-vs-labels discrepancy, and required-parameter expectations. An agent could call it but could not predict the effect on fields it did not supply.

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 38%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by mapping the user-facing concept 'assignee' to the opaque 'assignTo' parameter and listing the editable fields. However, it says 'labels' while the schema exposes a single 'label' (label uuid), and it says nothing about the required project/id or the raw flag.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('an issue') and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool changes. It does not differentiate from overlapping siblings such as gitflic_issue_close or gitflic_issue_reopen, which also alter issue status.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative, even though status changes are clearly duplicated by gitflic_issue_close and gitflic_issue_reopen in the sibling list. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server