gitlab-api

Update label

gitlab_update_label

Idempotent

Update an existing GitLab label's name, color, or description by specifying the project and label details.

Instructions

Update an existing label.

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_update_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`name`	No
`color`	No
`new_name`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether partial updates leave other fields untouched, what permissions are required, or whether renaming breaks existing references.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure to speak of beyond the verb and resource.

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 with six parameters, no required fields, and an untyped 'data' blob, this is far short of complete. Annotations cover the mutation semantics, but the agent has no way to know which parameters to supply or what the update returns.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them. The critical distinction between 'name' (current name) and 'new_name' (rename target), the meaning of 'project_id', and the opaque 'data' object are entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing label'), so an agent knows the basic operation. It does not differentiate from siblings such as gitlab_create_label, gitlab_delete_label, or gitlab_get_label, which is what keeps it below 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of gitlab_create_label or gitlab_get_label, no prerequisites, and no mention of what happens if the label name does not exist. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server