Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_issue_description_patch

Apply a search/replace or unified diff patch to a GitLab issue description, reducing token usage by sending only the change. Preview with dry_run and optionally add a summary note.

Instructions

Apply a patch (search/replace or unified diff) to an issue description. Reduces token usage by allowing small changes without sending the full description. Supports dry_run to preview changes and create_note to summarize updates. Use this for a targeted search/replace or unified-diff change to an issue description; use dry_run before applying an uncertain patch and create_note when an audit summary is wanted. It changes the issue description when not dry-running, requires issue-edit permission, and returns the patch result or a mismatch/validation/permission error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchYesThe patch content to apply to the issue description
dry_runNoIf true, preview changes without updating the issue
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
issue_iidYesThe internal ID of the project issue
patch_typeYesType of patch format to apply
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
create_noteNoIf true, add a note summarizing the change after update
allow_multipleNoFor search_replace: allow multiple matches to all be replaced (default: false — fail on duplicate)

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 changedv2.1.62
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "patch_type",
-  "patch",
-  "project_id",
-  "issue_iid"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid",
+  "patch_type",
+  "patch"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.12

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses the side effect ('changes the issue description when not dry-running'), the permission requirement ('requires issue-edit permission'), and possible outcomes ('patch result or a mismatch/validation/permission error'). This goes well beyond the sparse annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and is generally efficient. However, the dry_run/create_note functionality is stated twice ('supports dry_run... create_note' and 'use dry_run... create_note'), creating slight redundancy without much added 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value ('returns the patch result or ... error') and the key side-effect/permission context. It relies on the thoroughly documented schema for parameter details, which is reasonable at 100% coverage, though a bit more detail on duplicate-match failure for allow_multiple could strengthen it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by explaining dry_run as 'preview changes' and create_note as 'summarize updates,' and by mapping patch_type to 'search/replace or unified diff,' but it does not substantially extend what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'apply a patch ... to an issue description.' It also distinguishes itself from a full-description update by noting it 'reduces token usage by allowing small changes without sending the full description,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like update_issue.

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?

It explicitly says 'use this for a targeted search/replace or unified-diff change to an issue description' and gives conditional guidance for dry_run and create_note. It does not explicitly name the alternative full-update tool or state 'do not use for full rewrites,' but the targeted-change framing makes the intended use clear.

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