Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ttpears

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Note

update_note
Idempotent

Edit the body of an existing GitLab issue or merge request comment using the note author's token. Update note content with Markdown support.

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

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

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. Addedv1.15.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description contributes non-annotation context: the authorization constraint that the token must be the note author's, which is the main failure mode an agent needs to anticipate.

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 short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded and the auth requirement immediately after. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

For a simple mutation with full schema coverage, annotations, and only three parameters, this covers what an agent must know to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain — no note that only the body is editable (not other note attributes) and no mention of what a successful update returns, though no output schema exists to lean on.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the bare-ID-vs-GraphQL-gid format for noteId and Markdown support for body, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only implies that body is the field being changed; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (edit) and resource (the body of an existing note) and scopes it to GitLab issues/merge requests, which clearly separates it from create_note and delete_note. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the mutation scope is unambiguous.

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?

Adds a concrete precondition — the token must belong to the note author — which tells the agent when this call will succeed versus fail. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use create_note for new comments) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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