Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-api

gitlab-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Delete tag

gitlab_delete_tag
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a tag in a GitLab project. Provide project ID and tag name to remove an unwanted or obsolete tag.

Instructions

Delete a tag in a project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or 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_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNo
tagNo
pageNo
confirmNoExplicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
messageNo
per_pageNo
max_pagesNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20
    • 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
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observedv27.3.13

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 a successful call returns a wrapper with no data and which exceptions are raised, but it never mentions that a destructive operation may require explicit confirmation (the `confirm` parameter exists in the schema), which is the most behaviorally significant fact for an agent here.

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 text is short and front-loads the purpose, but the Args/Returns/Raises docstring boilerplate includes a generic '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' line that conveys nothing, and the remaining sections are more verbose than the single-line purpose warrants.

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 an 8-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description should clarify the required tag identifier, the confirmation flow, and the pagination parameters. Instead it misnames the tag argument, omits confirmation entirely, and leaves most parameters undocumented, so an agent would have to guess from the schema alone.

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 13% (only `confirm` is documented), so the description must compensate and largely fails. It names 'project_id' and 'name' as the relevant arguments, but 'name' is not a parameter at all — the schema uses `tag` (and also exposes `ref`, `message`, `page`, `per_page`, `max_pages`), so the description actively misleads about the identifier parameter.

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 tag in a project'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like gitlab_create_tag, gitlab_get_tag, or gitlab_unprotect_tag. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is specific enough that confusion with siblings is unlikely.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement about prerequisites (e.g. Maintainer role), and no pointer to alternatives such as gitlab_unprotect_tag (which only removes protection) versus this destructive delete. The only conditional information is error-raising, which is not usage guidance.

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