gitlab-mcp-server

edit_project_wiki_page

Update the content, title, or format of an existing GitLab project wiki page using its slug, new title, format, and content.

Instructions

Edit an existing wiki page for a GitLab project

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "edit_project_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No
`title`	No
`format`	No
`content`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1May 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / format / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "markdown",
-  "rdoc",
-  "asciidoc",
-  "org"
-]New value: +[
+  "markdown",
+  "rdoc",
+  "asciidoc",
+  "org",
+  "plaintext"
+]

First observedv1.0.0Apr 1, 2025

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'edit' without mentioning potential side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or whether the page must already exist. This is insufficient for an agent to understand invocation consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity. A score of 3 reflects minimal viability with room for improvement.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain required fields, return values, or behavior when editing non-existent pages. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional meaning for any parameter (slug, title, format, content, project_id). The agent must guess parameter purpose and format, making correct invocation unlikely.

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 'Edit an existing wiki page for a GitLab project' clearly specifies the action (edit), resource (existing wiki page), and context (GitLab project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_project_wiki_page' and 'delete_project_wiki_page'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as comparing it to 'create_or_update_file' or specifying prerequisites like needing the project ID or existing slug. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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

Deploy Server