@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

update_epic_note

Edit the body of an existing epic note. Provide the note's global ID from list_epic_notes and new Markdown content to replace the entire note.

Instructions

Edit the body of an existing epic note. Get note_id from list_epic_notes. dry_run=true by default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_epic_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note_id`	Yes	Note global ID (e.g. gid://gitlab/Note/123 or gid://gitlab/DiscussionNote/123). Returned by list_epic_notes.
`body`	Yes	New note body (Markdown). Replaces the existing content entirely.
`dry_run`	No	Dry run mode (default: true). When true, returns a preview of the action without executing it. Set to false only after user confirmation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the description needs to add behavioral context. It does so by disclosing the dry_run=true default, which is crucial for safe use. It correctly implies mutation without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences delivering the core action and two key usage tips. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place.

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 update tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main action and provides critical context (how to get note_id, dry run mode). It is nearly complete, though it could mention that updates are permanent only when dry_run is false.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising 'Get note_id from list_epic_notes' for the note_id parameter, and restates the dry_run default, which reinforces schema info and provides practical usage hints.

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 the verb 'Edit' and the resource 'existing epic note', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_epic_note (create) and delete_epic_note (remove). It also tells how to obtain the note_id, reinforcing its specific role.

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 gives contextual guidance: 'Get note_id from list_epic_notes' and notes the dry_run default. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it alternatives, leaving a minor gap.

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

Deploy Server