Skip to main content
Glama
ttpears

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears

Update Note

update_note
Idempotent

Edit the body of an existing comment on a GitLab issue or merge request. Use this to update note content with new text or Markdown.

Instructions

Edit the body of an existing comment (note) on a GitLab issue or merge request. Requires a user token belonging to the note author.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteIdYesNote ID — either the bare numeric ID or the full GraphQL gid (gid://gitlab/Note/123)
bodyYesNew note body (Markdown supported)
userCredentialsNoYour GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the update_note tool. Extracts user credentials, validates authentication, then calls client.updateNote() with the note ID and new body, returning the updated note.
    handler: async (input, client, userConfig) => {
      const credentials = input.userCredentials ? validateUserConfig(input.userCredentials) : userConfig;
      if (!credentials) {
        throw new Error('User authentication is required for updating notes.');
      }
      const result = await client.updateNote(input.noteId.trim(), input.body, credentials);
      return result.note;
    },
  • Input schema for update_note: requires a noteId (string) and body (string), with userCredentials added via withUserAuth.
    inputSchema: withUserAuth(z.object({
      noteId: z.string().min(1).describe('Note ID — either the bare numeric ID or the full GraphQL gid (gid://gitlab/Note/123)'),
      body: z.string().min(1).describe('New note body (Markdown supported)'),
    })),
  • src/tools.ts:1251-1271 (registration)
    Full tool definition object for update_note including name, title, description, annotations, input schema, and handler.
    const updateNoteTool: Tool = {
      name: 'update_note',
      title: 'Update Note',
      description:
        'Edit the body of an existing comment (note) on a GitLab issue or merge request. Requires a user token belonging to the note author.',
      requiresAuth: true,
      requiresWrite: true,
      annotations: { readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true },
      inputSchema: withUserAuth(z.object({
        noteId: z.string().min(1).describe('Note ID — either the bare numeric ID or the full GraphQL gid (gid://gitlab/Note/123)'),
        body: z.string().min(1).describe('New note body (Markdown supported)'),
      })),
      handler: async (input, client, userConfig) => {
        const credentials = input.userCredentials ? validateUserConfig(input.userCredentials) : userConfig;
        if (!credentials) {
          throw new Error('User authentication is required for updating notes.');
        }
        const result = await client.updateNote(input.noteId.trim(), input.body, credentials);
        return result.note;
      },
    };
  • GitLabGraphQLClient.updateNote() — helper that constructs and executes the GraphQL updateNote mutation, converting a bare numeric ID to a full gid as needed.
    async updateNote(
      noteId: string,
      body: string,
      userConfig?: UserConfig
    ): Promise<{ note: { id: string; body: string; updatedAt: string }; errors: string[] }> {
      const gid = noteId.startsWith('gid://') ? noteId : `gid://gitlab/Note/${noteId}`;
      const mutation = `
        mutation UpdateNote($input: UpdateNoteInput!) {
          updateNote(input: $input) {
            note { id body updatedAt }
            errors
          }
        }
      `;
      const result = await this.query<{
        updateNote: { note: { id: string; body: string; updatedAt: string }; errors: string[] };
      }>(mutation, { input: { id: gid, body } }, userConfig, true);
      if (result.updateNote.errors.length > 0) {
        throw new Error(`updateNote failed: ${result.updateNote.errors.join('; ')}`);
      }
      return result.updateNote;
    }
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations (e.g., no mention of error handling, side effects, or rate limits). Since annotations carry the burden, the description is adequate but not additive.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence plus a brief requirement. Every word is necessary and no filler. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint (author token). It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but for an update operation, the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes the parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond 'Edit the body,' which is implicit from the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides sufficient semantic detail.

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 explicitly states 'Edit the body of an existing comment (note) on a GitLab issue or merge request.' It uses a specific verb ('Edit'), identifies the resource ('note'), and provides context (on issue/merge request), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_note and delete_note.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly notes a prerequisite: 'Requires a user token belonging to the note author.' This indicates when the tool is applicable and a limiting condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like create_note or delete_note, which are siblings.

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