gitlab-api

Update wiki page

gitlab_update_wiki_page

Idempotent

Updates an existing GitLab project wiki page, letting you modify its title, content, or format. Use it to keep project documentation current without creating a new page.

Instructions

Update an existing wiki page for a project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or slug 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_update_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`file`	No
`slug`	No
`title`	No
`branch`	No
`content`	No
`version`	No
`project_id`	No
`format_type`	No
`render_html`	No
`with_content`	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

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation; the description adds runtime preconditions for project_id/slug and specific error types. However, it does not explain permission requirements, overwrite or partial-update semantics, or how fields interact.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the error list is useful, but the docstring-style Args section spends space on generic **kwargs rather than meaningful parameter detail. The Returns sentence is also generic, so the definition is short but not maximally efficient.

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 11 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin for reliable invocation. It covers the basic action and two required identifiers but omits the operational details needed to set most fields safely.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only names project_id and slug, and only as generic kwargs examples. It provides no semantics for content, title, branch, version, format_type, render_html, with_content, data, or file, leaving most parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Update an existing wiki page for a project." It is clear but does not distinguish itself from sibling wiki tools such as create, delete, or get wiki page.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word "existing" implies this tool is for modifying a page rather than creating one, giving minimal when-to-use context. It names no explicit alternatives or exclusions, so routing against sibling wiki tools is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server