gitlab-api

Enable project runner

gitlab_enable_project_runner

Activate a runner for a specific GitLab project by supplying project_id and runner_id; returns the updated runner details.

Instructions

Enable a runner in a project.

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

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a Runner model.

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_enable_project_runner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`info`	No
`token`	No
`active`	No
`locked`	No
`paused`	No
`status`	No
`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
+}

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuine context beyond them: the return shape (wrapper containing a Runner model) and the error behavior (MissingParameterError, ParameterError). It stops short of explaining what enabling actually changes or what permissions are needed, so it is useful but partial.

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 the core sentence is front-loaded, but it is a generic docstring template: the Args line is a placeholder that conveys nothing, and the Raises section carries parameter requirements that would be better stated up front. Nothing is padded, but not every line earns 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 mutation tool with 19 undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not do enough. It never states what state change "enable" produces, whether it is safe to repeat (idempotentHint=false is flagged but unexplained), or what the Runner model contains beyond its name.

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?

With 19 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description names only project_id and runner_id and lumps everything else under "**kwargs". The remaining 17 fields (active, locked, paused, status, tag_list, access_level, etc.) get no meaning at all, and the kwargs framing obscures the actual flat schema, which could mislead an agent about how to pass arguments.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Enable a runner in a project"), and the "in a project" scoping separates it from group- or instance-level runner operations. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as gitlab_update_runner_details, gitlab_pause_runner, or gitlab_delete_project_runner, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g., maintainer/owner or admin permissions), and no reference to alternatives like pausing or updating runner details. The only usage signal is the implicit requirement that project_id and runner_id be supplied, mentioned under Raises rather than as guidance.

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

Deploy Server