Skip to main content
Glama
chntif
by chntif

gitlab_update_label

Update an existing GitLab project label's name, color, description, or priority to reflect changes.

Instructions

Update a project label (/projects/:id/labels).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoGitLab project ID. Omit this field unless the user explicitly provided a value. When omitted, the tool tries the current runtime config defaults from WORKFLOW_ISSUE_PROJECT_ID or WORKFLOW_CODE_PROJECT_ID. If both are unset, or both are set to different values, the tool returns a missing-parameter error and you must pass project_id explicitly. Do not infer or auto-generate this value.
nameNoExisting label name.
new_nameNoNew label name.
colorNoNew color, e.g. #00AAFF.
descriptionNoNew label description.
priorityNoNew label priority.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool call succeeded.
toolYesTool name.
dataNoUpdated label payload.
error_typeNoError type when ok=false.
messageNoError message when ok=false.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose mutation behavior, required fields for identification, or error handling; it only states the action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Extremely concise single sentence, but could marginally include usage conditions without sacrificing brevity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple update operation and presence of output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks context like prerequisites or field dependencies.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for each parameter; the tool description adds no additional meaning, warranting baseline score.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Update a project label' with the endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only restates the name without context for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chntif/mcp-gitlab-workflow'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server