Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_issue_note

Edit an existing note in an issue thread by replacing its content or toggling its resolved state using project, issue, discussion, and note identifiers.

Instructions

Modify an existing issue thread note. Use this for an existing resource; choose the corresponding create tool for a new resource and a note tool for discussion-only text. It changes remote GitLab state and requires the necessary project or group permission; GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying an invalid request. When project_id or group_id is accepted, provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema; use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoThe content of the note or reply
note_idYesThe ID of a thread note
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
resolvedNoResolve or unresolve the note
issue_iidYesThe IID of an issue
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
discussion_idYesThe ID of a thread

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
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid",
+  "discussion_id",
+  "note_id"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / resolved
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Resolve or unresolve the note",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "body"
-]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description takes on the burden of explaining side effects. It clearly states that the tool changes remote GitLab state and requires project or group permission. It also discloses that GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying invalid requests, which is useful behavioral context.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the core purpose and usage. However, the final sentence includes generic and partially incorrect guidance about group_id and pagination fields, so not every sentence earns its place. Structurally it is adequate but not tight.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the action, usage context, permission requirements, and error behavior, which is useful for a mutating tool with minimal annotations. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what a successful response contains or how the updated note is returned. It is complete enough for basic invocation but leaves some uncertainty about the result shape.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, meaning the description does not need to explain them. The description actually introduces inaccuracies: it mentions group_id and pagination fields, but the schema only includes project_id and no pagination parameters. This could confuse an agent into looking for fields that do not exist, lowering the score below the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Modify an existing issue thread note.' It also distinguishes this from creating a new resource via the corresponding create tool, which helps separate it from siblings like create_issue_note. However, it does not explicitly name the exact sibling alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives clear context: use it for an existing resource, and use a create tool for a new resource. It also explains that the tool changes remote GitLab state and requires appropriate permissions, which helps an agent decide whether this is appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions for other sibling tools like merge-request note update tools, so it is not a perfect 5.

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