Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-api

gitlab-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Delete epic

gitlab_delete_epic
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a GitLab group epic by group ID and epic IID, with explicit confirmation for this destructive operation. Use it to remove obsolete or duplicate epics from a group.

Instructions

Delete a group epic.

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_delete_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
titleNo
confirmNoExplicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
epic_iidNo
group_idNo
descriptionNo
state_eventNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.18
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv27.3.13

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond the title: it does not say the epic and its notes/child associations are permanently removed, nor that the operation is irreversible or requires Owner/Maintainer rights. For a destructive mutation this is a thin disclosure.

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?

A single four-word sentence with no filler, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy. There is no front-loaded warning or target-identification information an agent could act on.

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?

The tool is destructive, has seven mostly undocumented parameters, no required-parameter enforcement, and no output schema. Against that complexity the description supplies essentially nothing about targeting, confirmation semantics beyond the schema's own note, or the effect of the deletion, so it is incomplete for the risk involved.

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?

Schema description coverage is 14%: only 'confirm' is documented, and the description explains none of the seven parameters. Critically, it never states that group_id and epic_iid are needed to identify the target, even though the schema marks zero parameters as required, so an agent could plausibly invoke the call with an empty object.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a group epic'), which is enough to separate it from read-oriented siblings like gitlab_get_epic and gitlab_get_epics. It does not differentiate it from other delete siblings (e.g. gitlab_delete_issue, gitlab_delete_milestone), but the resource word 'epic' does the distinguishing work.

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 mention of the alternative of closing an epic versus deleting it, and no prerequisites such as required group membership or ownership. The agent is told what the call does but never when it is the right call.

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