gitlab-api

Update user

gitlab_update_user

Idempotent

Update an existing GitLab user's profile, email, password, permissions, or status by specifying the user ID and fields to change.

Instructions

Update an existing user.

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_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`sudo`	No
`admin`	No
`email`	No
`active`	No
`admins`	No
`humans`	No
`blocked`	No
`user_id`	No
`external`	No
`order_by`	No
`password`	No
`per_page`	No
`provider`	No
`username`	No
`max_pages`	No
`extern_uid`	No
`two_factor`	No
`total_pages`	No
`created_after`	No
`created_before`	No
`exclude_external`	No
`exclude_internal`	No
`saml_provider_id`	No
`without_projects`	No
`skips_confirmation`	No
`without_project_bots`	No
`with_custom_attributes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 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 / sudo / default
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +null
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say which attributes are mutable, whether blocked/deactivated users or passwords can be changed, or what permissions are required. With the annotation bar met, the description still contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 single sentence is clean and front-loaded with no filler, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency given a 31-parameter update tool. It is well-formed yet severely undersized for the operation it names.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 31-parameter mutation with zero documented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves an agent unable to determine how to identify the user or which of the many fields actually apply. This is completely inadequate relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

There are 31 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. It does not even clarify that user_id identifies the target, nor explain the mixed-in listing parameters (page, per_page, sort, order_by, created_after, max_pages) that appear unrelated to an update operation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Update an existing user'), so the basic operation is identifiable, but it names no updatable fields and no identifier parameter, leaving it far less precise than sibling tools like gitlab_create_user or gitlab_get_user. An agent can tell it is a mutation on a user but nothing about its scope.

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 mention of prerequisites such as admin privileges, and no routing to alternatives like gitlab_create_user, gitlab_delete_user, or gitlab_get_user. The only implied usage is 'change something about a user', which the agent already infers from the name.

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

Deploy Server