gitlab-api

Edit group

gitlab_edit_group

Idempotent

Update an existing GitLab group's settings and configuration by providing its group_id and the properties to change.

Instructions

Edit a specific group.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., group_id).

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a Group model.

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the group_id is missing. ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_edit_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`path`	No
`avatar`	No
`argument`	No
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	No
`visibility`	No
`description`	No
`lfs_enabled`	No
`total_pages`	No
`default_branch`	No
`emails_enabled`	No
`membership_lock`	No
`mentions_disabled`	No
`wiki_access_level`	No
`auto_devops_enabled`	No
`duo_features_enabled`	No
`ip_restriction_ranges`	No
`share_with_group_lock`	No
`project_creation_level`	No
`request_access_enabled`	No
`shared_runners_setting`	No
`subgroup_creation_level`	No
`two_factor_grace_period`	No
`file_template_project_id`	No
`default_branch_protection`	No
`lock_duo_features_enabled`	No
`allowed_email_domains_list`	No
`enabled_git_access_protocol`	No
`shared_runners_minutes_limit`	No
`math_rendering_limits_enabled`	No
`prevent_forking_outside_group`	No
`unique_project_download_limit`	No
`require_two_factor_authentication`	No
`default_branch_protection_defaults`	No
`extra_shared_runners_minutes_limit`	No
`lock_math_rendering_limits_enabled`	No
`unique_project_download_limit_alertlist`	No
`unique_project_download_limit_allowlist`	No
`prevent_sharing_groups_outside_hierarchy`	No
`auto_ban_user_on_excessive_projects_download`	No
`unique_project_download_limit_interval_in_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

changedInput schema / properties / argument / default
```
Previous value: -"state=opened"New value: +null
```

removedInput schema / properties / avatar / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "binary",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / avatar / title
```
Added value: +"Avatar"
```
changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds two genuinely new facts: the return is a wrapper containing a Group model, and missing group_id raises MissingParameterError while bad parameters raise ParameterError. It still omits authorization requirements and the semantics of partial updates, but against annotated coverage a 3 is fair.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The one-sentence summary is front-loaded and waste-free, but the docstring scaffolding ("Args: **kwargs ... Returns: Response: A wrapper ...") is generic template text that occupies most of the definition while conveying almost nothing. The Raises block is the only substantive part of the boilerplate.

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 mutation tool exposing 45 optional parameters with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this definition is far too thin: an agent cannot tell which fields are settable, which values are legal, or what a successful response contains. The error-behavior notes are a small offset, but not enough to make the tool safely callable.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 45 parameters, so the description must carry the entire burden — and it does not. It mentions only group_id (in the error text) and dismisses everything else as "**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request," leaving fields like visibility, lfs_enabled, shared_runners_setting, and default_branch_protection undocumented in terms of allowed values, defaults, or effect.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Edit a specific group" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim and says nothing about what an edit entails or how it differs from nearby tools such as gitlab_edit_project, gitlab_update_user, or gitlab_api_request. An agent learns only that the resource is a group, which it already knew from the name.

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 guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of required permissions (group Owner/Maintainer) or of when to prefer the generic gitlab_api_request or gitlab_graphql tools. The only usage-adjacent signal is the Raises section implying group_id must be supplied, which is a prerequisite rather than a selection rule.

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

Deploy Server