gitlab-api

Delete project deploy token

gitlab_delete_project_deploy_token

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a project deploy token by project ID and deploy token ID, revoking its access. Use it to remove unused or compromised deployment credentials.

Instructions

Delete a deploy token for a project.

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

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response (no data for successful deletion).

Raises: ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided. MissingParameterError: If required parameters are missing.

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_project_deploy_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`page`	No
`token`	No
`scopes`	No
`confirm`	No	Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`username`	No
`max_pages`	No
`expires_at`	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
```

Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.18Nov 6, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by stating that a successful deletion returns a wrapper with no data, plus the ParameterError/MissingParameterError conditions, but it never explains the 'confirm' confirmation flow or the consequence of deleting a live credential.

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 is short and sectioned, but the 'Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' line is autogenerated filler that conveys nothing and is actively misleading. The Returns/Raises sections are useful but the most important information (which IDs are required) is absent from the front of the description.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an 11-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits required identifiers, the confirm flow, and any note that pagination/list-related parameters (page, per_page, max_pages, scopes, expires_at) are irrelevant to a delete. It does at least tell the agent what a successful response looks like.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. Worse, it points to 'deploy_token_id' as an example argument, which does not exist in the input schema, while the parameters that actually identify the token (project_id plus deploy_token_id-equivalent such as name/token) go unexplained and no parameter is marked required despite deletion needing an identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a deploy token for a project'), which clearly separates it from sibling creation/getter tools like gitlab_create_project_deploy_token and gitlab_get_project_deploy_tokens. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from gitlab_delete_group_deploy_token, but the project scope is named.

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 reach for this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (permissions/ownership of the token), and no mention that deletion is irreversible or that the 'confirm' flag may be needed. The only usage information is generic error types.

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

Deploy Server