gitlab-api

Publish repository package

gitlab_publish_repository_package

Idempotent

Publish a repository package to a specific GitLab project by providing the project ID, package name, version, and file name.

Instructions

Publish a repository package for a specific project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id, package_name, package_version, or file_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_publish_repository_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`select`	No
`status`	No
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`file_name`	No
`max_pages`	No
`package_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`package_name`	No
`package_type`	No
`package_version`	No
`include_versionless`	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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, is non-destructive, and is open-world. The description adds useful error behavior via MissingParameterError and ParameterError, plus a return-wrapper note, but it does not explain what file is published, where it comes from, 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args/Returns/Raises structure is readable, though the **kwargs example block is somewhat boilerplate and does not fully map to the explicit input schema.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It mentions a return wrapper and error conditions, but omits the meaning of most parameters, upload mechanics, and permission or source-file requirements.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it names only four example parameters (project_id, package_name, package_version, file_name) and lumps everything else under **kwargs. It leaves 11 of the 15 parameters, including ref, page, sort, select, status, group_id, per_page, max_pages, package_id, package_type, and include_versionless, without any semantic explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a repository package for a specific project.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as gitlab_get_repository_packages and gitlab_download_repository_package, though it does not explain what publishing entails beyond the name.

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, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. The agent is told only that it publishes a package for a project, without context about when publishing is appropriate versus downloading, listing, or using another package-related tool.

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

Deploy Server