GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_mr_discuss_resolve

DestructiveIdempotent

Resolve a merge request discussion thread by specifying the project, MR ID, and discussion UUID. Use it to mark conversations as handled and keep MR reviews organized.

Instructions

Resolve 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_resolve"
  }
}

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 declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds nothing about what resolving actually does (marks thread resolved? hides it? irreversible?), whether it can be undone, or what permissions are required — meaningful gaps 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Conciseness is good, though it errs toward under-specification rather than over-explanation.

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?

Given a destructive, idempotent mutation with three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to call it confidently or understand its side effects.

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% (only the 'raw' parameter is documented), so the description needed to compensate. It does not explain the required project, id, or discussionUuid parameters; only the phrase 'discussion thread on a merge request' loosely implies them.

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: 'Resolve a discussion thread on a merge request.' An agent can tell this is a write action on a discussion, but nothing in the description distinguishes it from siblings like gitflic_mr_discuss_reply or gitflic_mr_discuss_delete.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when resolving is appropriate versus replying or deleting a thread. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server