GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_mr_close

DestructiveIdempotent

Closes a merge request in a GitFlic project by its ID. Use it to mark an open MR as closed without merging, keeping the project's merge queue accurate.

Instructions

Close a merge request.

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_mr_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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already disclose a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond them. It does not explain whether closure is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how closure differs from related MR state changes.

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?

The single sentence is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, it is too skeletal to be appropriately sized for a destructive operation with undocumented required inputs.

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?

The basic intent is understandable, but the definition lacks identifier semantics, close-specific behavior, and guidance for selecting among MR actions. The annotations and the documented `raw` option help with invocation, but they do not fill those central gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the undocumented required `project` and `id` parameters need explanation, but the description supplies none. It gives no accepted project identifier format and does not clarify whether `id` is an MR number or an internal identifier.

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 provides a clear action and resource: "Close a merge request." It does not add scope or distinguish closing from sibling MR operations such as merging or cancelling.

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 explicit guidance about when closing is appropriate, any prerequisites, or when another MR tool should be used. The only implied use case is the restated desire to close a merge request.

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

Deploy Server