gitlab-mcp

Update Group Iteration

gitlab_update_group_iteration

Update a GitLab group iteration's title, description, or start and due dates by specifying the group and iteration ID, so you can revise planning details.

Instructions

Update a group iteration's title, description, or dates. iteration_id is the numeric ID from the iteration list or its global ID. Premium/Ultimate.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "iteration_id": "<iteration_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_update_group_iteration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`due_date`	No
`group_id`	Yes
`start_date`	No
`description`	No
`iteration_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the description's job is additive context. It usefully discloses the Premium/Ultimate licensing requirement, but omits critical mutation semantics: whether unspecified or null fields are left untouched or cleared, and whether the change is reversible. For a non-idempotent write tool with five nullable fields, that null-handling gap matters.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the action and the mutable fields, the second handles the ID format and plan gating. Nothing is repeated from the name or wasted.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden and only partly meets it. It covers plan eligibility and ID sourcing but leaves the agent guessing about partial-update semantics, nulls, and date format before committing a non-idempotent write.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that iteration_id is the numeric ID or a global ID. It names the mutable fields but adds nothing about date format (the schema's YYYY-MM-DD pattern), what null means for each field, or what group_id identifies beyond what the name implies.

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 a group iteration') plus the exact mutable fields (title, description, dates), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/list iteration siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so it lands just under the top of the scale.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'update' and the note that the tool is Premium/Ultimate, which is useful eligibility context. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. group ownership), and no pointer to the cadence-based update sibling.

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

Deploy Server