GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_mr_list

Read-only

Lists merge requests in a GitFlic project and returns key details such as title, status, author, and branches, with filters for status, author, and branch to narrow results.

Instructions

List merge requests in a project. Returns array with localId, title, status, author, source/target branches.

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>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_mr_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Free-text filter over title + description.
`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.
`page`	No	0-based page index
`size`	No	Page size, default 10
`sort`	No	Sort field; prefix '-' for descending.
`limit`	No	Return at most N.
`author`	No	Keep only MRs by this author username.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`status`	No	Filter by status (OPENED\|MERGED\|CLOSED\|CANCELED\|FAILED).
`project`	Yes
`sourceBranch`	No	Keep only MRs from a source branch matching this.
`targetBranch`	No	Keep only MRs targeting a branch matching this.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the response shape (localId, title, status, author, branches), which is modestly useful, but says nothing about default page size, result caps, or how the 'raw'/'fields' options change output.

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 action and followed by the return shape; no filler. It could be marginally tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Twelve parameters and no output schema make this a fairly complex definition; the description covers the collection purpose and the returned field list, which partially substitutes for an output schema. It omits pagination semantics, the interaction between limit/page/size, and when to use raw=true, leaving gaps for a 12-param tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 92%, so nearly every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema, including q, raw, fields, status, and branch filters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List merge requests in a project') and names the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a collection read. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as gitflic_mr_view (single MR) or gitflic_mr_by_commit, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over gitflic_mr_view or gitflic_mr_by_commit, or that filtering (status/author/branch) is the intended way to narrow results rather than fetching a single MR.

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

Deploy Server