gitlab-api

Reset group runner token

gitlab_reset_group_runner_token

Reset a GitLab group runner's registration token to invalidate the old token and generate a new one for runner registration.

Instructions

Reset registration token for a group's runner.

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

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and the raw token data.

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the group_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_reset_group_runner_token"
  }
}

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 declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds useful error behavior (MissingParameterError when group_id is absent, ParameterError for bad params) and the return shape ('wrapper containing the original response and the raw token data'). However it omits the key behavioral fact for a reset operation: that the previous registration token stops working and existing runners using it may need re-registration.

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 clear, but the body is boilerplate docstring scaffolding: 'Args: **kwargs' conveys nothing, and the Args/Raises formatting is heavier than the content warrants.

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 19-parameter, mutation-style tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition does not supply enough for an agent to call it confidently. It never explains which of the 19 params are actually relevant, what the response looks like, or what side effects the reset has.

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 19 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It mentions only group_id (as an example inside **kwargs) and leaves runner_type, access_level, active, locked, max_pages, and the rest entirely unexplained, with no hint about which matter for this operation.

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?

First sentence gives a specific verb ('Reset') and resource ('registration token for a group's runner'), which distinguishes it in scope from the project-level and instance-level reset siblings even though it never names them. An agent can tell what object is being mutated without opening the schema.

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_reset_project_runner_token, gitlab_reset_gitlab_runner_token, or gitlab_reset_token, nor any prerequisite or caution about the effect of resetting. The only implied usage context is the required group_id.

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

Deploy Server