gitlab-mcp

Update Group Iteration Cadence

gitlab_update_group_iteration_cadence

Update a GitLab group iteration cadence to change its title, schedule, duration, or active status. Use the cadence ID from the group's iteration cadence list.

Instructions

Update an iteration cadence of the group. iteration_cadence_id is a numeric ID or cadence global ID from gitlab_list_group_iteration_cadences. 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_cadence_id": "<iteration_cadence_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_update_group_iteration_cadence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`active`	No
`group_id`	Yes
`automatic`	No
`roll_over`	No
`start_date`	No
`description`	No
`duration_in_weeks`	No
`iteration_cadence_id`	Yes
`iterations_in_advance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely new context in the Premium/Ultimate tier gating, but it omits key mutation semantics: whether omitted or null fields leave existing values untouched or clear them, and whether the cadence ID can be rotated. For a 10-parameter write tool that is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It could have spent a few more words on field semantics rather than being quite this terse, but nothing present is wasteful.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with 10 parameters, nullable optional fields, and no output schema, the description is thin. Tier gating and ID sourcing are covered, but partial-update behavior and the meaning of the majority of parameters are left entirely to inference from bare JSON types.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only iteration_cadence_id gets an explanation (numeric or global ID); the other eight optional fields (active, automatic, roll_over, start_date, duration_in_weeks, iterations_in_advance, title, description) are undocumented in both schema and description, even though their semantics (e.g. automatic vs roll_over interaction) are non-obvious.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update an iteration cadence of the group'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling cadence tools (create/delete/list) and from the iteration-level tool 'gitlab_update_group_iteration'. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

It helpfully tells the agent where the ID comes from ('cadence global ID from gitlab_list_group_iteration_cadences') and notes the Premium/Ultimate tier requirement. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'gitlab_update_group_iteration' or what happens when only some fields are supplied, so usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server