gitlab-api

Create tag

gitlab_create_tag

Create a GitLab project tag from a specified ref or commit by supplying project ID and tag name, with an optional message.

Instructions

Create a tag in a project.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id, name).

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or name is missing. 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_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`tag`	No
`page`	No
`message`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return wrapper (response plus Tag model) and the two error conditions (MissingParameterError, ParameterError). It does not say what happens on a duplicate tag name, but what it does add is real.

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 docstring structure (Args/Returns/Raises) is orderly and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args block is content-free boilerplate about **kwargs and consumes space without adding information. The Returns and Raises blocks are the only substantive parts.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified: it never explains ref, tag, message, or the pagination parameters. Annotations cover the safety profile and the Returns/Raises sections help, but the agent is left guessing at the core inputs needed to call this correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely fails to. The Args section only names 'project_id, name' as examples - and 'name' does not even match the actual schema field 'tag' - leaving ref, message, page, per_page, and max_pages completely undocumented. The most important semantic ('ref' defaults to the default branch if omitted) is absent.

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource statement ('Create a tag in a project'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like gitlab_get_tag, gitlab_delete_tag, and gitlab_protect_tag. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb alone makes the operation unambiguous.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_protect_tag or gitlab_create_release, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., required permissions, whether the tag must point at an existing ref). The only usage signal is the implied 'create' verb.

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

Deploy Server