gitlab-api

Delete project level rule

gitlab_delete_project_level_rule

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a project-level merge request approval rule by specifying the project ID and approval rule ID to remove outdated or unnecessary approval requirements.

Instructions

Delete a project-level merge request approval rule.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or approval_rule_id 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_delete_project_level_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`name`	No
`confirm`	No	Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
`group_id`	No
`user_ids`	No
`group_ids`	No
`rule_type`	No
`project_id`	No
`report_type`	No
`approval_rule_id`	No
`merge_request_iid`	No
`approvals_required`	No
`protected_branch_ids`	No
`applies_to_all_protected_branches`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful details about the successful response containing no data and about MissingParameterError/ParameterError, but it does not discuss permissions, confirm behavior, or the irreversible impact of deleting an approval rule.

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 description is reasonably short and front-loads the purpose, but the Args/Returns/Raises structure includes a misleading **kwargs entry and omits more relevant parameter details. It is serviceable but not tightly optimized.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with 14 schema parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description identifies two key IDs and error behavior, but it is far too thin for the complexity and leaves important parameters and confirmation semantics unclear.

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 7% across 14 parameters. The description mentions project_id and approval_rule_id as examples and notes they are required, but leaves most schema parameters unexplained; its **kwargs framing also conflicts with the schema's additionalProperties=false.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: delete a project-level merge request approval rule. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling create/edit/get approval-rule tools.

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?

It does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor does it state prerequisites or when deletion should be avoided. The delete operation is implied by the name, but no real usage guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server