gitlab-api

Update runner details

gitlab_update_runner_details

Idempotent

Update a specific GitLab CI/CD runner's details, including status, tags, access level, and timeout, to correct or adjust its configuration.

Instructions

Update details for a specific runner.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the runner_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_update_runner_details"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the baseline is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral details by naming the required runner_id and the MissingParameterError/ParameterError conditions, but it does not explain what runner settings are actually changed, what permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible.

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 description is short and front-loads the purpose, and the Returns/Raises sections add some value. However, the Args section is generic kwargs boilerplate that does not help the agent reason about the 19 typed parameters.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the definition is substantially incomplete. The return wrapper and error conditions are mentioned, but an agent still lacks the field-level meaning and permission context needed to call this safely and correctly.

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 19 parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning. It mentions only runner_id via kwargs and leaves active, locked, paused, status, tag_list, access_level, maximum_timeout, maintenance_note, and the rest completely undocumented.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: update details for a specific runner. It is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as gitlab_pause_runner, gitlab_delete_runner, or gitlab_reset_gitlab_runner_token.

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, no exclusions, and no comparison to related runner-management tools. The only conditional behavior mentioned is an error if runner_id is missing, which is not 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