GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_mr_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit a GitFlic merge request's title, description, or target branch; the source branch remains unchanged.

Instructions

Edit MR title/description/target. Source branch cannot change.

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_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`to`	No
`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.
`title`	No
`squash`	No
`project`	Yes
`description`	No
`removeBranch`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the source branch cannot change, but it does not explain the destructive behavior implied by removeBranch or how squash affects the MR. For a destructive mutation tool, that leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted wording, and the core action is front-loaded. The term target is slightly ambiguous against the schema's to field, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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 an eight-parameter, destructive MR mutation with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves key editable fields and destructive options undocumented, so an agent cannot fully understand the tool's effects from the definition alone.

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 13%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions title, description, and target, which maps to three fields, but it says nothing about the required project and id parameters or the squash and removeBranch booleans. Most of the eight parameters remain semantically unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: edit an MR's title, description, or target. It clearly separates this from siblings like gitflic_mr_create, gitflic_mr_view, and gitflic_mr_merge. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only constraint given is that the source branch cannot change, which is useful but does not route the agent between tools.

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

Deploy Server