Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitLab MCP Server

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Issue

update_issue
Idempotent

Modify GitLab issue title, description, assignees, labels, and due date with schema-aware mutations to keep project tracking accurate.

Instructions

Update an issue (title, description, assignees, labels, due date) with schema-aware mutations

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iidYesIssue IID (internal ID shown in the URL)
titleNo
dueDateNoYYYY-MM-DD
labelNamesNo
descriptionNo
projectPathYesFull path of the project (e.g., "group/project-name")
userCredentialsNoYour GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)
assigneeUsernamesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "accessToken": {
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "gitlabUrl": {
-        "format": "uri",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "accessToken": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "gitlabUrl": {
+        "format": "uri",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / description
      Previous value: -"Your GitLab credentials (optional - uses shared token if not provided)"New value: +"Your GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)"
  3. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague phrase 'schema-aware mutations', which leaves the critical partial-update question unanswered: are omitted fields (labels, assignees, due date) preserved or cleared, and do label/assignee arrays replace or append?

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and fields stated immediately. The trailing clause 'with schema-aware mutations' is jargon that consumes space without conveying actionable meaning.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% schema coverage, the description omits partial-update semantics, credential fallback behavior beyond the schema note, permission requirements, and any indication of what a successful update returns.

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 50%; iid, projectPath, dueDate and userCredentials are documented in the schema, while title, description, labelNames and assigneeUsernames are bare. The description names the mutable fields, partially compensating, but adds no semantics such as replace-vs-append behavior for label and assignee arrays.

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 ('Update') plus resource ('an issue') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. Sibling differentiation is implicit only (create_issue / delete_issue / get_issues are distinguished by verb), but nothing is ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus create_issue, delete_issue, or the generic execute_rest_write, and no stated prerequisites (valid projectPath/iid, permissions). Usage is only inferred from the verb 'update'.

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