Skip to main content
Glama
ttpears

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears

Update Broadcast Message

update_broadcast_message
Idempotent

Update an existing GitLab broadcast message's text, timing, colors, and targeting options. Requires administrator privileges.

Instructions

Update an existing GitLab broadcast message. Requires administrator privileges.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesBroadcast message ID
messageNoMessage text to display
starts_atNoISO 8601 timestamp when the message starts
ends_atNoISO 8601 timestamp when the message ends
colorNoBackground color in hex format, e.g. "#E75E40"
fontNoForeground (font) color in hex format
target_access_levelsNoAccess levels to target: 10=Guest, 20=Reporter, 30=Developer, 40=Maintainer, 50=Owner
target_pathNoPath glob for pages where the message should appear
broadcast_typeNoBroadcast type: "banner" or "notification"
dismissableNoWhether users can dismiss the broadcast message
themeNoTheme name (GitLab 16.9+), e.g. "indigo", "red"
userCredentialsNoYour GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., partial update behavior, conflict handling).

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?

The description is very short (one sentence) but could be more informative. It is not overly verbose, but lacks structure and detail for a tool with 12 parameters.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100% so the schema sufficiently describes all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what's already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it updates an existing GitLab broadcast message and requires admin privileges, distinguishing it from create, get, delete, and list siblings.

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?

The description mentions a prerequisite (admin privileges) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create or delete.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ttpears/gitlab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server