Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_merge_request

Modify an existing GitLab merge request by updating its title, description, labels, assignees, reviewers, branches, or state. Requires project ID and merge request IID or source branch.

Instructions

Update a merge request (merge_request_iid or source_branch required). Use the create tool for new resources and a note tool for comments. Changes GitLab data; needs permission and returns validation or conflict errors. project_id/group_id take a numeric ID or URL-encoded path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftNoWork in progress merge request
titleNoThe title of the merge request
labelsNoLabels for the MR
squashNoSquash commits into a single commit when merging
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
descriptionNoThe description of the merge request
state_eventNoNew state (close/reopen) for the MR
assignee_idsNoThe ID of the users to assign the MR to
milestone_idNoMilestone ID to assign. Set to 0 to unassign. Null is treated as omitted.
reviewer_idsNoThe ID of the users to assign as reviewers of the MR
source_branchNoSource branch name
target_branchNoThe target branch
merge_request_iidNoThe IID of a merge request
remove_source_branchNoFlag indicating if the source branch should be removed

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 changedv2.1.43
    • addedInput schema / properties / milestone_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Milestone ID to assign. Set to 0 to unassign. Null is treated as omitted.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Only openWorldHint is annotated, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it warns the call mutates GitLab data, requires permission, and can return validation or conflict errors. It stops short of describing reversibility or what a partial update leaves untouched.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its targeting requirement, with no filler. The identifier caveat and alternative routing are packed into parentheses, which is efficient though slightly dense.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers targeting, safety, permissions, and error modes. It leaves the return shape and optional-field interactions implicit, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely non-schema information: the either/or requirement of merge_request_iid or source_branch, and accepted ID/path formats. It does not hint at how the many optional fields interact (e.g. state_event vs draft).

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (merge request) plus the identifier constraint needed to target one. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the create tool and note tools, so an agent can separate it from siblings 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Names alternatives ('create tool for new resources', 'note tool for comments'), which is strong routing guidance. It does not spell out when-not-to-use beyond that (e.g. state transitions vs field edits), so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives triad.

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