gitlab-api

Reset project runner token

gitlab_reset_project_runner_token

Resets a GitLab project runner's registration token when the current token must be replaced or invalidated, returning the new token data for re-registration.

Instructions

Reset registration token for a project's runner.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_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_project_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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the baseline is partly covered. But the description adds little: it doesn't say the old token is immediately invalidated, whether runners must be re-registered afterward, or what the returned token data can be used for. That invalidation consequence is the critical behavior for a token-reset operation and is absent.

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 front-loaded and clear, but it is followed by auto-generated docstring scaffolding (Args/Returns/Raises) that restates generic error types rather than useful specifics. 'Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id)' is filler that pushes the one important parameter into a parenthetical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description does cover the return wrapper and two error conditions, which is more than nothing. But with 19 largely irrelevant parameters, no output schema, and three confusingly similar sibling tools, an agent still lacks the information needed to invoke this correctly and interpret the result.

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 19 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely, yet it only mentions kwargs/project_id in the Args block. The remaining 18 parameters (runner_id, group_id, token, active, locked, paused, status, tag_list, etc.) appear to belong to unrelated runner-list/update operations and are completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to tell which fields matter.

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?

The description says 'Reset registration token for a project's runner', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the very similarly named siblings gitlab_reset_gitlab_runner_token, gitlab_reset_group_runner_token, and gitlab_reset_token, so an agent cannot route confidently among them from the description alone.

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 use this versus the instance-wide or group-level reset tools, nor any mention of prerequisites like maintainer/owner permissions. The only usage-adjacent content is the Raises section, which hints that project_id is required but never states it as usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server