Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_merge_request_note

Update an existing merge request note with new content. Provide project ID, merge request IID, note ID, and body to modify the note in GitLab.

Instructions

Modify an existing merge request 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
bodyYesThe content of the note or reply
note_idYesThe ID of a thread note
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
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
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "body",
-  "project_id",
-  "merge_request_iid",
-  "note_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "note_id",
+  "body"
+]
  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
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "body",
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_iid",
+  "note_id"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation modifies remote state, requires permissions, and returns errors (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit) rather than silently applying invalid requests. This is clear behavioral context, though it could mention idempotency or side effects more explicitly.

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 a single coherent paragraph, starts with the primary action, and avoids fluff. It includes necessary context without being overly verbose, though it could be trimmed slightly to improve scannability.

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 tool with no output schema, it adequately covers permissions, error handling, and identifier formatting. It does not describe the return value, but that's not required. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, with only minor gaps around success behavior.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to provide numeric IDs or complete URL-encoded paths and to use required identifiers exactly as documented. However, it references 'project_id or group_id' while the schema only includes project_id, a slight inconsistency that reduces the bonus.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Modify an existing merge request note.' It explicitly distinguishes from the create tool ('choose the corresponding create tool for a new resource') and from discussion-only notes, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for existing resources, create tool for new resources, note tool for discussion-only text. It also specifies permission requirements and error behavior, covering when and how to invoke the tool versus 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