Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-api

gitlab-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Update note

gitlab_update_note
Idempotent

Modify an existing GitLab note's content by providing the note ID along with project and issue identifiers.

Instructions

Update a note.

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_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
dataNo
note_idNo
issue_iidNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv27.3.13

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, non-destructiveness, and open-world access, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of required permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what happens if body is null (which the schema explicitly allows as a default).

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Three words, so nothing is wasted, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope, target, or constraint for the agent to anchor on.

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 5 optional parameters, no required-field guidance, no output schema, and an unexplained free-form 'data' object, the definition leaves out everything an agent needs to construct a valid call, particularly the note_id + project_id/issue_iid targeting requirement.

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?

With 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and zero required parameters, the description must explain what note_id, project_id, issue_iid, body, and the opaque 'data' object mean and how they combine to locate a note; it says nothing about any of them.

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?

The description is a bare restatement of the name and title ('Update a note'), conveying only that a note is modified, with no mention of which resource identifiers are involved or how it differs from gitlab_create_note, gitlab_delete_note, or gitlab_get_note.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent must infer that this edits an existing note rather than creating one, and gets no hint about prerequisites such as needing an existing note_id or the owning project/issue.

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