gitlab-api

Delete project runner

gitlab_delete_project_runner

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a GitLab project runner by project ID and runner ID, requiring explicit confirmation for this destructive action.

Instructions

Delete a runner from a project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or runner_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_runner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`info`	No
`token`	No
`active`	No
`locked`	No
`paused`	No
`status`	No
`confirm`	No	Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
`group_id`	No
`tag_list`	No
`max_pages`	No
`runner_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`all_runners`	No
`description`	No
`runner_type`	No
`access_level`	No
`run_untagged`	No
`maximum_timeout`	No
`maintenance_note`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / all_runners / default
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +null
```

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

addedInput schema / properties / max_pages

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": 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, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description does add real context beyond that: deletion yields no data on success, and missing project_id/runner_id raises MissingParameterError. It omits the `confirm` escalation path (only visible in the schema) and says nothing about permissions or whether the runner registration is revoked.

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 layout is readable and front-loads the action, and the Returns/Raises blocks earn their space. The Args section is the weak point: '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id, runner_id)' is vague enough to be nearly filler.

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 a simple destructive delete the core semantics (what is removed, which identifiers are mandatory, what comes back) are present. But with 20 loosely-typed optional parameters and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing which parameters actually matter and how this differs from gitlab_delete_runner.

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 5% across 20 parameters. The description names project_id and runner_id as examples in a **kwargs line but gives no meaning for the other 18 fields (active, locked, paused, tag_list, max_pages, group_id, etc.), and does not warn that those are irrelevant leftovers for a delete call.

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 with scope: "Delete a runner from a project." That is clear enough to act on, but a near-identical sibling (gitlab_delete_runner) exists and the description never says how the project-scoped deletion differs from the global one.

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 when the global gitlab_delete_runner should be preferred, and no statement of prerequisites such as ownership or maintainer permissions. The only selector information is implicit in the tool name.

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

Deploy Server