Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitLab MCP Server

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Merge Request

update_merge_request
Idempotent

Update a GitLab merge request's title, description, assignees, reviewers, and labels with schema-aware mutations to keep MR details current.

Instructions

Update a merge request (title, description, assignees, reviewers, labels) with schema-aware mutations

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iidYesMerge Request IID (internal ID shown in the URL)
titleNo
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
reviewerUsernamesNo

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
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond them: "schema-aware mutations" is undefined, and it never says whether omitted fields are left untouched, whether partial updates are safe, or what permissions the token needs. For a mutation tool the patch semantics are exactly what the agent needs and they are missing.

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 the mutable fields up front; there is no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, and the closing formula is the only wasted clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Placed at 4 because the description is compact but the structured data carries the load: annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers the required identifiers and the credentials parameter. The description reasonably confines itself to listing the mutable fields. It stops short of 5 because the field list is the only thing it contributes and no patch semantics are added.

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 only 38%; the schema describes iid, projectPath, and userCredentials, while the description names the remaining five fields (title, description, assignees, reviewers, labels) — so the two together cover all eight parameters by name. However, the description supplies no semantics for those fields: no array-format hints for usernames/labels, no indication of replace-vs-merge behavior for 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 and resource ("Update a merge request") and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, assignees, reviewers, labels), which makes it distinguishable from sibling create_merge_request. The trailing phrase "schema-aware mutations" is jargon that adds no discriminating information, and the tool's most consequential capability (changing MR state) is absent.

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 choose this over create_merge_request, update_issue, or execute_rest_write, and no preconditions (permissions, MR must exist, MR must be open) are stated. An agent must infer everything about applicability from the name alone.

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