gitlab-mcp

Update Webhook

gitlab_update_webhook

Update an existing GitLab project or group webhook's URL, secret token, events, or SSL verification; omitted settings retain their current values.

Instructions

Update a project or group webhook's URL, secret token, events, or SSL verification. Omitted fields keep their values.

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": {
      "hook_id": "<hook_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_update_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`name`	No
`token`	No
`hook_id`	Yes
`group_id`	No
`job_events`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No
`note_events`	No
`push_events`	No
`emoji_events`	No
`issues_events`	No
`member_events`	No
`project_events`	No
`pipeline_events`	No
`releases_events`	No
`subgroup_events`	No
`tag_push_events`	No
`wiki_page_events`	No
`deployment_events`	No
`feature_flag_events`	No
`vulnerability_events`	No
`merge_requests_events`	No
`branch_filter_strategy`	No
`enable_ssl_verification`	No
`confidential_note_events`	No
`push_events_branch_filter`	No
`confidential_issues_events`	No
`resource_access_token_events`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that with 'Omitted fields keep their values,' disclosing PATCH-style partial-update semantics. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, the project/group scope constraint, or side effects on webhook delivery, which matter for a mutation tool with 29 parameters.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope and updatable fields front-loaded and the partial-update caveat immediately after. Zero redundant wording.

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 29-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is materially incomplete. An agent cannot tell from the description that hook_id is required, that exactly one of project_id/group_id identifies the scope, or how branch_filter_strategy interacts with the event flags.

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 29 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails: it names only four fields (url, token, events, ssl verification) and omits hook_id being required, the project_id/group_id mutual-exclusivity, the branch_filter_strategy enum, and the meaning of the ~15 event booleans. The 'omitted fields keep their values' line is valuable but far short of compensating.

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 project or group webhook') and enumerates representative fields (URL, secret token, events, SSL verification). It is clearly distinguishable from create/delete siblings by the verb, but it never explicitly contrasts with them or clarifies the project-vs-group scoping choice.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., maintainer/owner permissions, whether project_id or group_id must be supplied), and no mention of when to prefer create/delete over update. The agent must infer all invocation conditions.

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

Deploy Server