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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Update Merge Request Tool

update_merge_request_tool

Modify an existing GitLab merge request's title, description, labels, assignees, reviewers, milestone, target branch, or state to keep code review details current.

Instructions

Update an existing merge request.

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>",
      "merge_request_iid": "<merge_request_iid>"
    },
    "name": "update_merge_request_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoMR title
labelsNoComma-separated label names
project_idYesProject ID or path
descriptionNoMR description (Markdown)
state_eventNoState transition (close, reopen)
assignee_idsNoUser IDs to assign
milestone_idNoMilestone ID
reviewer_idsNoUser IDs to review
target_branchNoTarget branch
merge_request_iidYesMerge request internal ID
remove_source_branchNoRemove source branch after merge

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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 / merge_request_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"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / reviewer_ids / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 for a mutation tool, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a partial update where omitted fields stay unchanged, not permission requirements, not whether state_event can close/reopen, not reversibility. A 100% schema description coverage helps with fields but the schema never declares the partial-update contract.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, so it is not verbose, but it is sized too small for an 11-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 explained, but for a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotations the description omits the partial-update semantics and permission/error behavior an agent needs. It is complete only in the trivial sense that the action verb is stated.

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%, so every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with full coverage it is not required to.

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 merge request"), which clearly distinguishes an edit from create_merge_request_tool or get_merge_request_tool by action. However it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings, so an agent gets no routing guidance beyond the verb.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternatives guidance at all. With three sibling MR tools (list/get/create) sharing nearly the same name, the description gives no cue about prerequisites such as having the merge_request_iid from get_merge_request_tool.

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