gitlab-api

Cherry pick commit

gitlab_cherry_pick_commit

Cherry-pick a GitLab commit into a new branch to apply specific changes without merging entire branches.

Instructions

Cherry-pick a commit into a new branch.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a Commit model.

Raises: ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_cherry_pick_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`all`	No
`ref`	No
`data`	No
`line`	No
`name`	No
`note`	No
`page`	No
`path`	No
`force`	No
`since`	No
`state`	No
`stats`	No
`until`	No
`branch`	No
`actions`	No
`context`	No
`dry_run`	No
`message`	No
`coverage`	No
`per_page`	No
`ref_name`	No
`user_ids`	No
`group_ids`	No
`line_type`	No
`max_pages`	No
`rule_type`	No
`start_sha`	No
`project_id`	No
`target_url`	No
`with_stats`	No
`author_name`	No
`commit_hash`	No
`description`	No
`pipeline_id`	No
`report_type`	No
`author_email`	No
`start_branch`	No
`start_project`	No
`protected_branch_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

removedInput schema / properties / author_email / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "email",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / author_email / title
```
Added value: +"Author Email"
```
changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```

removedInput schema / properties / target_url / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "uri",
-    "maxLength": 2083,
-    "minLength": 1,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / target_url / title
```
Added value: +"Target Url"
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "project_id"
-]
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (a response wrapper containing a Commit model) and the ParameterError failure mode, which is genuine extra context — but it says nothing about required inputs, conflict behavior, or permissions.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args/Returns/Raises block is auto-generated docstring padding whose only substantive line is '**kwargs', which conveys nothing. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A 39-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and zero required fields declared needs the description to carry the burden of explaining which inputs matter. It does none of that, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 39 parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description contributes only '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.' It never mentions project_id, commit_hash, branch, or start_branch — the fields an agent actually needs to call this successfully.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Cherry-pick a commit into a new branch' — which is distinct from siblings like gitlab_revert_commit, gitlab_create_commit, and gitlab_create_branch. It stops short of naming those alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous on its own.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to cherry-pick versus revert or recreate a commit, no prerequisites such as needing a source project/commit hash and target branch, and no warning about merge conflicts. The agent must infer all selection context from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server