GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_issue_reopen

Destructive

Reopen a closed GitFlic issue by specifying the project and issue ID, restoring it to active status for continued tracking.

Instructions

Reopen a closed 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>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_issue_reopen"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of permission requirements, whether a reopen comment/timeline event is created, or whether the prior closed state is recoverable.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. However, given a mutation tool with three parameters and a 33% coverage schema, the extreme brevity reads as under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the load for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and it does not describe the result or side effects. It is just barely complete because the annotations convey the destructive/write profile and the name plus schema identify the target resource.

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 description coverage is only 33%: only `raw` is documented inline. The description supplies no meaning for `project` or `id` (e.g., whether `id` is a global or per-project issue number), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the two required parameters.

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 plus resource ("Reopen ... issue") and the qualifier "closed" makes the operation unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from the obvious inverse operation in the sibling set (gitflic_issue_close), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: "closed issue" hints that the target must already be closed, which is the single most relevant precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. close/edit/comment guidance and no statement of what happens if the issue is already open.

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

Deploy Server