gitlab-api

Get deploy tokens

gitlab_get_deploy_tokens

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve GitLab deploy tokens with optional filters for project, group, name, username, scopes, and expiration to audit or manage deployment access.

Instructions

Get all deploy tokens.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a list of DeployToken models.

Raises: ParameterError: If the request fails or returns invalid data.

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_get_deploy_tokens"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`page`	No
`token`	No
`scopes`	No
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`username`	No
`max_pages`	No
`expires_at`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

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
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a return-shape note (wrapper plus DeployToken models) and the ParameterError failure mode, which is modestly useful. It omits anything about the sensitive nature of token values, pagination limits (page/per_page/max_pages), or that results may be filtered despite the phrase "all".

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and short, but the rest is an unedited docstring dump: an Args section that says nothing and a Raises/Returns boilerplate block. It is not bloated in length, but a meaningful share of the text earns no 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?

With 10 undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and three near-duplicate sibling tools, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. The Returns line partially substitutes for a missing output schema, but scoping, filtering, and pagination behavior all go unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. The only parameter text is "**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request," which is inaccurate (the schema has ten explicit named properties) and explains nothing about name, token, scopes, username, expires_at, page, per_page, max_pages, group_id, or project_id, including the important group_id-vs-project_id scoping choice.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get all deploy tokens" names a verb and resource, so the basic operation is clear. However, siblings such as gitlab_get_group_deploy_tokens, gitlab_get_project_deploy_tokens, and gitlab_get_project_deploy_token exist, and the description never explains what "all" means here (instance-wide vs. scoped) or how this differs from those narrower variants.

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 at all. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over gitlab_get_project_deploy_tokens or gitlab_get_group_deploy_tokens, and no prerequisites (scope, permissions, whether project_id/group_id are required to avoid an instance-wide query) are stated.

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

Deploy Server