gitlab-api

Erase project job

gitlab_erase_project_job

Erase a specific job in a GitLab project using project_id and job_id to remove it when no longer needed.

Instructions

Erase a specific job within a project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or job_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_erase_project_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`scope`	No
`job_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	No
`project_id`	No
`pipeline_id`	No
`total_pages`	No
`include_retried`	No
`job_variable_attributes`	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
-}

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description says the tool will 'Erase' a job, which is inherently destructive, while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. That is a direct contradiction of the safety profile an agent would rely on. The description also omits important behavioral context such as whether erasure is permanent or what permissions are required.

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 opening sentence is clear and front-loaded, and the Returns/Raises sections add some useful structure. However, the 'Args: **kwargs' boilerplate is generic and unhelpful, and the description is too thin for a ten-parameter mutation tool.

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 job-erasure tool with ten parameters, no output schema, and an annotation set that conflicts with the operation, the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain the effect of erasing a job, whether it is reversible, required permissions, or what most parameters control.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies that project_id and job_id are needed, via the MissingParameterError note. It leaves eight other parameters—page, scope, per_page, max_pages, total_pages, pipeline_id, include_retried, and job_variable_attributes—completely unexplained, despite their presence in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Erase a specific job within a project.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_job, cancel_project_job, retry_project_job, and run_project_job. It stops short of explaining what erasing a job actually does, but the operation is identifiable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as cancel_project_job or retry_project_job. The only usage-shaped information is the error behavior for missing project_id or job_id, which does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server