Git MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_issue

Update an existing issue on GitHub or GitLab by modifying its title, description, state, labels, assignee, or milestone.

Instructions

Update an existing issue

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": {
      "platform": "<platform>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "kwargs": "<kwargs>"
    },
    "name": "update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	No
`title`	No
`kwargs`	Yes
`labels`	No
`assignee`	No
`issue_id`	Yes
`platform`	Yes
`milestone`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.5Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing issue,' failing to note whether it is a partial update, what fields are updatable, or any side effects like notifications. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, it fails to provide minimal context for correct tool invocation.

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?

Given the high parameter count (10), required fields, and existence of an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the update works (e.g., partial vs full), return values, or any constraints. This shortfall may lead to improper usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain key parameters like kwargs, platform, or how fields interact, leaving the agent to infer everything from schema field names.

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?

The description states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing issue', which clearly indicates the tool's action. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like close_issue or create_issue, as it lacks scope details.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, which is critical given the many sibling issue tools.

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