Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_issue

Update an existing GitLab issue by changing its title, description, assignees, labels, milestone, or state. Get a slim confirmation or full updated issue object.

Instructions

Update an issue. Returns a slim confirmation by default; set full_response=true for the complete updated issue object. Use this to change fields on an existing issue; use update_issue_description_patch for a targeted description edit that avoids sending the full body, and use create_issue_note for discussion. The operation mutates issue state, requires issue-edit permission, and returns the updated issue or a validation/permission/conflict error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoThe title of the issue
labelsNoArray of label names
weightNoWeight of the issue (numeric, typically hours of work)
due_dateNoDate the issue is due (YYYY-MM-DD)
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
issue_iidYesThe internal ID of the project issue
issue_typeNoThe type of issue. One of issue, incident, test_case or task.
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
descriptionNoThe description of the issue
state_eventNoUpdate issue state (close/reopen)
assignee_idsNoArray of user IDs to assign issue to
confidentialNoSet the issue to be confidential
milestone_idNoMilestone ID to assign
full_responseNoIf true, return the complete updated issue object. Default returns a slim confirmation (iid, title, state, web_url, updated_at) to reduce token usage.
discussion_lockedNoFlag to lock discussions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.30
    • addedInput schema / properties / full_response
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, return the complete updated issue object. Default returns a slim confirmation (iid, title, state, web_url, updated_at) to reduce token usage.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue_type / description
      Previous value: -"the type of issue. One of issue, incident, test_case or task."New value: +"The type of issue. One of issue, incident, test_case or task."
    • changedInput schema / properties / weight / description
      Previous value: -"Weight of the issue (0-9)"New value: +"Weight of the issue (numeric, typically hours of work)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "issue_type"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only carry `openWorldHint: true`, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation mutates issue state, requires issue-edit permission, returns the updated issue or validation/permission/conflict errors, and explains the slim vs. full response behavior. This substantially exceeds what annotations alone provide and contains no contradiction.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary action and response behavior before moving to usage distinctions and side effects. Every sentence earns its place: no filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is thorough: it covers mutability, permission requirements, return values, error types, and response-shape options. It also provides enough usage context to route between related tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and safely is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics for `full_response` by explaining the default slim confirmation and the specific fields it returns, which goes beyond the schema's one-line description. This warrants a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an issue'), and clearly identifies the tool's scope: changing fields on an existing issue. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `update_issue_description_patch` and `create_issue_note`, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('change fields on an existing issue') and names two alternatives with their use cases: `update_issue_description_patch` for targeted description edits avoiding full-body sends, and `create_issue_note` for discussion. This gives both positive and negative routing guidance.

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