Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_merge_request_discussion_note

Update an existing merge request discussion note to change its content or resolve status. Modify note body or resolution state directly in GitLab.

Instructions

Update a discussion note on a merge request. 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
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
discussion_idYesThe ID of a thread
merge_request_iidYesThe IID of a merge request

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",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "discussion_id",
+  "note_id"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that this changes remote GitLab state, requires project/group permission, and surfaces validation, conflict, permission, and rate-limit errors rather than silently succeeding.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage alternatives, then behavioral warnings retries and identifier guidance. It is somewhat longer than necessary and includes a generic 'pagination fields' phrase that does not apply here, but the content is relevant and front-loaded.

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 7-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description conveys purpose, usage, side effects, authorization, error handling, and identifier format. It does not describe the success return payload or the exact interaction of body and resolved, but the schema covers parameter semantics and the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 and the description adds little beyond the schema. It offers generic advice on numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths and required identifiers, but it also mentions pagination fields that do not exist in this schema and adds no per-parameter meaning.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Update a discussion note on a merge request.' It also differentiates from likely siblings by stating that it is for an existing resource, pointing to the corresponding create tool for new resources and a note tool for discussion-only text.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create and note tools, and it explains required permissions and error behavior. It also instructs on how to supply project identifiers, covering both context and exclusions.

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