gitlab-api

Delete release

gitlab_delete_release

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a GitLab project release by project ID and tag name. Use it to remove an unwanted release when the project and release tag are known.

Instructions

Delete a release in a project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or tag_name 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_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No
`data`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`simple`	No
`confirm`	No	Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
`group_id`	No
`order_by`	No
`per_page`	No
`tag_name`	No
`max_pages`	No
`milestones`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No
`released_at`	No
`tag_message`	No
`total_pages`	No
`direct_asset_path`	No
`include_html_description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that successful deletion returns no data and enumerates the error types raised. It does, however, omit the most behaviorally significant detail: the 'confirm' parameter exists as an explicit gate for a destructive, irreversible operation, and the description never mentions it or what collateral state (release assets, evidence) may be lost.

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 purpose sentence is correctly front-loaded, but the body is a raw docstring with 'Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' boilerplate that conveys no information, followed by a Returns block for an operation that has no meaningful return value. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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?

For a destructive, high-stakes operation with 20 schema parameters, no output schema, and near-zero schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. An agent is left without the confirm-parameter workflow, the identity requirements beyond 'project_id or tag_name', or any sense of what the parameters in the shared signature are for.

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, so the description carries the burden of compensation and largely fails to. It mentions only project_id and tag_name; the remaining 18 parameters (confirm, ref, data, name, page, sort, per_page, milestones, released_at, direct_asset_path, etc.) are undocumented in both places, and most appear to be irrelevant boilerplate from a shared client signature.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Delete a release in a project.' That is enough to distinguish it from gitlab_create_release, gitlab_update_release, or gitlab_delete_tag, though the description never explicitly names those siblings or the ambiguity risk between them.

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/when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, sole maintainer/owner access), and no direction to alternatives such as gitlab_update_release or gitlab_delete_tag. The only implicit hint is the Raises section, which reveals that project_id and tag_name are effectively required.

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

Deploy Server