GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_mr_comment

Destructive

Adds a comment to a merge request, including inline-anchored comments via new_path/new_line or old_path/old_line.

Instructions

Add a comment to a merge request. For inline-anchored comments, pass new_path/new_line and old_path/old_line.

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_mr_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
`newLine`	No
`newPath`	No
`oldLine`	No
`oldPath`	No
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the inline-anchor behavior but says nothing about the non-idempotency risk (retries posting duplicate comments) or permission requirements, which would be the valuable additions here.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The only cost is that the second sentence is compressed to the point of terseness and could not be understood without also reading the schema.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description omits what a comment call returns, how project/id identify the merge request, and the limit/resolve semantics. It is not complete enough for an agent to call this correctly without guessing.

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 13% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not. It explains the line-anchoring pairs but names them in snake_case (new_path/new_line) while the schema uses camelCase, and it leaves the three required identifiers (project, id, message) completely unexplained — 'id' in particular is ambiguous without saying whether it is a merge request number or global id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a comment to a merge request") and adds the inline-anchoring variant, so the agent knows immediately what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as gitflic_mr_discuss_reply, which an agent could plausibly confuse with commenting.

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 second sentence gives a usable condition for reaching for the inline-params path, which is real guidance. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like the discuss/reply tools, and no statement about prerequisites such as auth or merge request state.

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

Deploy Server