Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitFlic MCP Server

GitFlic MCP Server

by zhimbura
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

gitflic_mr_view

Read-only

Retrieve a single merge request by its local ID to inspect description, status, conflicts, and merge readiness. Narrow or expand returned fields as needed.

Instructions

Get one merge request by its localId. Returns full MR object including description, status, conflicts, canMerge.

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_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYeslocalId (e.g. '42')
rawNoReturn the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
fieldsNoReturn only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

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, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds value by enumerating what comes back ('description, status, conflicts, canMerge'), which tells the agent this call is a viable pre-check before merging. It says nothing about the slim-versus-full response tradeoff, which is the tool's main behavioral quirk.

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 with the identifier and the return payload front-loaded; nothing is padded or repeated. It could have spent one of those sentences on when to pass raw/fields instead, but as written every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it only names four fields of a 'full MR object' without indicating structure or what the slim default omits. It is enough to call the tool correctly, but not enough to know what to expect back relative to the raw/fields options.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema already ('localId (e.g. 42)', raw, fields). The description only reinforces the localId notion and adds no meaning for raw or fields beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Get one merge request') and pins the identifier to a localId, which separates it from list-style siblings like gitflic_mr_list. It does not distinguish itself from other single-MR retrievers such as gitflic_mr_by_commit or gitflic_mr_diff, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The definition never mentions alternatives (e.g. looking up an MR by commit, or fetching the diff) or any precondition for calling it, leaving the agent to infer routing from the verb alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools