Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_label

Update an existing project label's details such as name, color, description, or priority. Specify the project and label ID to change its attributes in GitLab.

Instructions

Update an existing label in a project. 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
colorNoThe color of the label given in 6-digit hex notation with leading '#' sign
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
label_idYesThe ID or title of a project's label
new_nameNoThe new name of the label
priorityNoThe new priority of the label
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
descriptionNoThe new description of the label

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. Addedv2.1.45
  3. Removedv2.1.43
  4. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "label_id"
+]
  9. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool changes remote GitLab state, requires project or group permission, and that GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying invalid requests. It could add more detail about patch semantics or response content, but it meaningfully surpasses the annotation coverage.

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 purpose, then covers usage, behavior, and parameter guidance in a logical order. The final sentence about identifiers and pagination is somewhat boilerplate and slightly inconsistent with the schema, adding minor noise, but overall the description is still appropriately compact.

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?

For a mutating 7-parameter tool with sparse annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, remote state changes, required permissions, and error behavior. It does not describe return values or detailed update semantics, and the group_id/pagination clause is slightly mismatched, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly using the description plus the schema.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's extra guidance about numeric IDs, URL-encoded paths, and using required identifiers is generic rather than parameter-specific, and it mentions group_id and pagination fields not present in the schema. This adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation ('Update an existing label in a project') with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from create and note tools by explicitly targeting an existing resource, and sibling tools confirm it is the update counterpart to create_label.

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 to use this tool for an existing resource and to choose the corresponding create tool for new resources or a note tool for discussion-only text. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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