Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Update Issue Tool

update_issue_tool

Modify an existing GitLab issue's title, description, labels, assignees, state, milestone, or confidentiality using the project ID and issue ID.

Instructions

Update an existing issue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "issue_iid": "<issue_iid>"
    },
    "name": "update_issue_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoIssue title
labelsNoComma-separated label names
issue_iidYesIssue internal ID
project_idYesProject ID or path
descriptionNoIssue description (Markdown)
state_eventNoState transition (close, reopen)
assignee_idsNoUser IDs to assign
confidentialNoWhether the issue is confidential
milestone_idNoMilestone ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / assignee_ids / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_iid / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / milestone_id / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it: it does not say whether the update is partial or full-replacement, which fields are mutable, that state_event closes/reopens an issue, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a critical gap.

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?

The single sentence is free of padding but is under-specified rather than concise; it consumes the whole description without front-loading any usable information beyond the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the input schema is fully documented, but for a 9-parameter mutation with no annotations the description omits the essential behavioral facts an agent needs: partial-update semantics, optional-vs-required fields, and the close/reopen effect of state_event.

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 description coverage is 100% and all 9 parameters (title, labels, issue_iid, project_id, description, state_event, assignee_ids, confidential, milestone_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Update an existing issue" restates the tool name and title almost verbatim, adding no scope, no mention of what can be changed, and no differentiation from siblings like update_merge_request_tool or update_label_tool. The verb+resource is identifiable but only because of the name, not because the description explains anything.

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 create_issue_tool, get_issue_tool, or update_merge_request_tool, and no stated preconditions (required project_id + issue_iid, permission needs). The agent must infer all routing 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

Other Tools