gitlab-api

Unprotect tag

gitlab_unprotect_tag

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove protection from a GitLab project tag to allow modification or deletion when the tag no longer needs protection.

Instructions

Unprotect a tag in a project.

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

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response (no data for successful deletion).

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or name 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_unprotect_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No
`tag`	No
`page`	No
`confirm`	No	Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.
`message`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	No
`project_id`	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
```

Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.18Nov 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicitly confirm this destructive operation. Needed only when the client cannot answer a confirmation prompt.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a successful call returns no data, which is useful, but says nothing about required permissions, what happens if the tag is not protected, or whether protection settings are recoverable.

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 sentence is front-loaded and clean, but the rest is Python docstring boilerplate; the '**kwargs ... (e.g., project_id, name)' line is vague and partially inconsistent with the actual schema, so it adds noise rather than precision.

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?

This is a destructive operation with 8 parameters, 13% schema coverage, and no output schema. The description should explain the identifier parameters and the confirm parameter's role in a destructive call, but it leaves most of that undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 13%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partly does by naming project_id and the tag identifier and by documenting the MissingParameterError/ParameterError failure modes. However it refers to the tag parameter as 'name', while the schema exposes 'tag' and 'ref', which risks mis-mapping, and it does not clarify the roles of ref, page, per_page, or max_pages.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Unprotect a tag in a project'), which is clear enough for an agent to act on. It does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as gitlab_delete_tag or gitlab_unprotect_branch, so an agent must infer the difference itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this rather than delete_tag (which removes the tag itself) or get_protected_tag/protect_tag. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as the tag being currently protected, which is essential context for this operation.

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

Deploy Server