gitlab-api

Protect tag

gitlab_protect_tag

Protects a GitLab project tag from modification or deletion to keep release and version references stable.

Instructions

Protect 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 and a Tag model.

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_protect_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`tag`	No
`page`	No
`message`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the failure modes (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and describing the return wrapper containing a Tag model. It does not explain what 'protected' means for access levels or whether repeat calls error out, which matters given the non-idempotent hint.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the Returns/Raises sections convey real information. However, the docstring-style scaffolding plus a '**kwargs' catch-all is boilerplate that misdescribes a closed schema (additionalProperties: false), so several lines do not earn their 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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: it never explains which of ref/tag identifies the tag, what project_id accepts, or what protection grants. The Returns section partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the caller still cannot reliably construct a valid invocation from the definition 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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It name-drops project_id and 'name' as kwargs, but 'name' is not a schema property (the schema has 'tag' and 'ref'), and it never separates required from optional despite the Raises section implying project_id and name are mandatory while the schema lists zero required params.

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: 'Protect a tag in a project.' An agent knows this is a write operation on tag protection. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as gitlab_unprotect_tag, gitlab_get_protected_tag, or gitlab_protect_branch, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus gitlab_protect_branch, gitlab_unprotect_tag, or the get_* protected-tag tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., required role, existing tag) are stated. The only usable signal is the verb itself, which leaves the agent to infer everything about applicability.

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

Deploy Server