Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-api

gitlab-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Retry project job

gitlab_retry_project_job

Retry a specific GitLab project job using project_id and job_id to rerun failed CI/CD work, returning the response and job details.

Instructions

Retry a specific job within a project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or job_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_retry_project_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
scopeNo
job_idNo
per_pageNo
max_pagesNo
project_idNo
pipeline_idNo
total_pagesNo
include_retriedNo
job_variable_attributesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.20
    • removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}
  2. First observedv27.3.13

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation that is not destructive. The description adds useful error conditions and a return shape, but it does not explain what retrying does to the existing job, whether a new job is created, or what auth or side effects are involved.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the docstring structure is readable. However, the Args section is largely boilerplate about **kwargs and does not earn its place, while useful details about the many explicit parameters are absent.

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 10-parameter mutation-like tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is too thin. It confirms project_id and job_id and describes the return wrapper, but most parameters and behavioral details remain undocumented.

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 10 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names only project_id and job_id, and does so indirectly under a generic **kwargs line, leaving page, scope, per_page, max_pages, total_pages, pipeline_id, include_retried, and job_variable_attributes unexplained.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: retry a job within a project. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as gitlab_run_project_job, gitlab_cancel_project_job, or gitlab_get_project_job.

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 guidance on when to retry versus run, cancel, or simply inspect a job. The implied usage is clear from the word 'Retry', but no prerequisites, job-state conditions, or alternatives are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools