gitlab-api

Edit project level rule

gitlab_edit_project_level_rule

Idempotent

Updates project-level merge request approval settings in GitLab, including author/committer approval, approval retention on push, and reauthentication requirements.

Instructions

Edit a project-level merge request approval setting.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_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_project_level_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`group_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`allow_author_approval`	No
`allow_committer_approval`	No
`retain_approvals_on_push`	No
`selective_code_owner_removals`	No
`require_reauthentication_to_approve`	No
`allow_overrides_to_approver_list_per_merge_request`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds useful error behavior (MissingParameterError when project_id is absent, ParameterError for invalid inputs) and the return wrapper shape, but it does not explain what is actually changed, whether omitted settings are preserved, or what permissions are required.

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 description is short and the purpose sentence is front-loaded. However, the Args section is a generic docstring artifact that does not match the explicit schema and does not earn its place.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete: it gives no parameter semantics, no use-case guidance, and no permission or side-effect detail. The return and error notes help, but not enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must explain the nine parameters. Instead it only mentions a generic **kwargs bag and cites project_id as an example, leaving the approval-setting booleans (allow_author_approval, retain_approvals_on_push, etc.) completely undefined; the kwargs framing is also misleading given the explicit schema fields.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('project-level merge request approval setting'), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling gitlab_update_project_level_rule or explain when edit applies versus update, 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 guidance on when to use this tool rather than gitlab_update_project_level_rule, gitlab_create_project_level_rule, or the group-level equivalent. The only context is a generic docstring; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server