gitlab-api

Run pipeline

gitlab_run_pipeline

Triggers a GitLab CI/CD pipeline for a specified project and ref. Requires project_id and ref, then returns pipeline details for tracking.

Instructions

Run a pipeline for a specific project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or ref 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_run_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`data`	No
`page`	No
`status`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	No
`variables`	No
`project_id`	No
`pipeline_id`	No
`total_pages`	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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the write/side-effecting nature is covered. The description adds genuine value with error semantics (MissingParameterError for missing project_id/ref, ParameterError for invalid params) and the return wrapper shape, but it omits what happens to the triggered pipeline (queued, executed immediately) and whether repeated calls create duplicate pipelines.

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 docstring structure (Args/Returns/Raises) is scannable and front-loads the core action, but the Args section is inaccurate boilerplate and the Raises/Returns lines consume space without covering the parameters an agent actually has to set.

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?

Annotations handle the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, but with 10 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no required-parameter declaration (required: 0 despite project_id and ref being mandatory in practice), the description leaves an agent guessing about the most important inputs.

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 carries the full burden and largely fails. It only gestures at project_id and ref, and the '**kwargs' framing is misleading given additionalProperties=false and explicit named parameters; the critical 'variables' parameter for injecting pipeline variables and the odd pagination parameters (page, per_page, max_pages, total_pages, status, pipeline_id) are never explained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (run a pipeline for a project), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as gitlab_graphql_ops_create_pipeline or gitlab_run_pipeline_schedule, so an agent can tell what it does but not precisely when it is the right one.

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?

The only guidance is indirect, through the 'Raises' block stating project_id and ref are required. There is no statement of when to use this versus scheduling a pipeline, versus the GraphQL create_pipeline variant, and no prerequisites such as permissions or branch/ref existence.

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

Deploy Server