Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_issue

Update an issue's title, description, labels, or status (close/reopen) in a GitLab project.

Instructions

이슈 수정 (제목·설명·상태·레이블)

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "issue_iid": "<issue_iid>"
    },
    "name": "update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo새 제목
labelsNo레이블 (쉼표 구분)
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
issue_iidYes이슈 내부 번호
project_idYes프로젝트 ID 또는 경로
descriptionNo새 설명
state_eventNo상태 변경 이벤트

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions editing but does not state that it persists changes, requires authorization, or how partial updates work. It lacks detail expected for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 line with no redundancy, perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is necessary.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It omits explanation of parameters like instance, issue_iid, and does not describe return behavior. For a tool of this complexity, more detail is needed.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing fields (title, description, status, labels) already documented in the schema. No examples or constraints are provided.

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 tool edits issues and lists editable fields (title, description, status, labels). The verb '수정' (edit) plus resource '이슈' (issue) is specific and distinguishes from siblings like create_issue or get_issue.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for editing existing issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not scenarios. With siblings like get_issue, this lack of differentiation is 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

Other Tools