gitlab-api

Revert commit

gitlab_revert_commit

Revert a GitLab commit using its project ID and commit hash to undo changes and create a new commit, preserving history. Use to roll back specific changes without force-pushing.

Instructions

Revert a commit.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.

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

Raises: 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_revert_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`all`	No
`ref`	No
`data`	No
`line`	No
`name`	No
`note`	No
`page`	No
`path`	No
`force`	No
`since`	No
`state`	No
`stats`	No
`until`	No
`branch`	No
`actions`	No
`context`	No
`dry_run`	No
`message`	No
`coverage`	No
`per_page`	No
`ref_name`	No
`user_ids`	No
`group_ids`	No
`line_type`	No
`max_pages`	No
`rule_type`	No
`start_sha`	No
`project_id`	No
`target_url`	No
`with_stats`	No
`author_name`	No
`commit_hash`	No
`description`	No
`pipeline_id`	No
`report_type`	No
`author_email`	No
`start_branch`	No
`start_project`	No
`protected_branch_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

removedInput schema / properties / author_email / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "email",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / author_email / title
```
Added value: +"Author Email"
```
changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```

removedInput schema / properties / target_url / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "uri",
-    "maxLength": 2083,
-    "minLength": 1,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / target_url / title
```
Added value: +"Target Url"
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "project_id"
-]
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only boilerplate about a response wrapper and a ParameterError, saying nothing about what the revert actually produces (a new commit on a branch), whether a branch/ref is required, or side effects such as CI triggering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but almost all of the text is machine-generated Args/Returns/Raises scaffolding that conveys no information. The one meaningful line is front-loaded correctly, but the remainder is filler rather than earned content.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with 39 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description does almost nothing: no parameter mapping, no required-input guidance, no statement of what gets modified. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the definition alone.

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 39 parameters, so the description must compensate — and instead it collapses everything into '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request.' Key inputs like project_id, commit_hash, branch and dry_run go entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess which of the 39 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 'Revert a commit', which is a specific verb plus resource, so an agent can tell it apart from read tools like gitlab_get_commit. However it adds nothing beyond the tool name and title, and gives no indication of what a revert means in GitLab terms (a new commit that reverses the changes) or which identifier the commit is located by.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to prefer this over gitlab_cherry_pick_commit, gitlab_create_commit, or the generic gitlab_api_request. No prerequisites (project, branch, permissions) or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server