@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

update_issue_note

Update the body of an existing issue note. Provide the note ID and new Markdown content; dry-run mode shows a preview without applying changes.

Instructions

Edit the body of an existing issue note. Get note_id from list_issue_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_issue_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_issue_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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with the edit action. The description adds behavioral context by stating 'Replaces the existing content entirely' and explaining the dry run behavior, which goes beyond the bare 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. No redundant information.

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 edit tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core functionality, ID source, and dry run behavior. It lacks details about error handling or return values, but the tool is straightforward.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by directing users to get note_id from list_issue_notes and reiterating the dry run default, but this is marginal.

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 'Edit the body of an existing issue note', providing a specific verb and resource. It also directs to 'Get note_id from list_issue_notes', helping differentiate from sibling tools like update_epic_note and update_mr_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 explicitly notes that 'dry_run=true by default' and advises 'Set to false only after user confirmation', offering clear guidance on when to use the dry run feature. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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

Deploy Server