gitlab-api

Create user

gitlab_create_user

Create a GitLab user account by specifying username, email, password, and access attributes such as admin or active status.

Instructions

Create a new user.

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_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`sudo`	No
`admin`	No
`email`	No
`active`	No
`admins`	No
`humans`	No
`blocked`	No
`user_id`	No
`external`	No
`order_by`	No
`password`	No
`per_page`	No
`provider`	No
`username`	No
`max_pages`	No
`extern_uid`	No
`two_factor`	No
`total_pages`	No
`created_after`	No
`created_before`	No
`exclude_external`	No
`exclude_internal`	No
`saml_provider_id`	No
`without_projects`	No
`skips_confirmation`	No
`without_project_bots`	No
`with_custom_attributes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 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 / sudo / default
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +null
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication that creating users typically requires admin privileges, that identity fields (name/username/email) are effectively required despite the schema marking none, or what happens on duplicate username/email.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is free of waste but is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded context an agent could act on. Length itself is not the problem, the absence of any substantive content is.

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?

For a 31-parameter write operation with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine required inputs, permission requirements, or the difference between creation fields and the stray list/filter parameters.

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?

31 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enum values, so the description carries the full burden and provides none of it. Critical fields (admin, external, provider, extern_uid, skips_confirmation, two_factor, password) are indistinguishable from pagination noise (page, per_page, sort, order_by), which the schema bizarrely exposes on a create endpoint.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Create a new user" restates the tool name and title verbatim and adds no scope, target resource detail, or distinguishing information. An agent learns nothing beyond the fact that this is the create half of the user CRUD set (gitlab_get_user, gitlab_update_user, gitlab_delete_user).

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as gitlab_update_user or gitlab_get_users. The only inference available is the verb 'create', which the name already provides.

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

Deploy Server