GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_mr_discuss_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a discussion thread on a merge request to remove resolved or outdated conversations. Provide the project, merge request ID, and discussion UUID.

Instructions

Delete a discussion thread on 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>",
      "discussionUuid": "<discussionUuid>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_mr_discuss_delete"
  }
}

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
`discussionUuid`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether replies within the thread are also removed, what permissions are required, or whether the operation 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a destructive operation with three unlabeled parameters.

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 destructive, irreversible-sounding tool with 3 undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum clarify the identifier semantics and the consequence of deletion (thread contents lost, permissions needed).

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 25% (just the `raw` flag), so the description must compensate for project, id, and discussionUuid. It mentions none of them; an agent cannot tell whether `id` is a merge request ID or something else, or what format discussionUuid takes.

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: 'Delete a discussion thread on a merge request.' An agent can distinguish it from gitflic_mr_discuss_list/reply/resolve by the deletion verb, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to delete a thread versus resolving it (gitflic_mr_discuss_resolve) or replying, and no prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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

Deploy Server