gitlab-api

Verify runner authentication

gitlab_verify_runner_authentication

Verifies a GitLab runner's authentication token to confirm the runner is authorized and can connect to GitLab.

Instructions

Verify runner authentication.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the token 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_verify_runner_authentication"
  }
}

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

D1.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied. The description's Raises/Returns boilerplate does add two facts not in annotations (a token is required and a successful call returns no data), but they are generic framework text rather than tool-specific behavior — nothing about who may call it, what it contacts, or what a failed verification looks like. It does not contradict the annotations, but the added value is thin.

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 text is short and the purpose line is front-loaded, which is good, but most of the length is generic Args/Returns/Raises scaffolding that would be identical on every tool in this server and conveys almost no tool-specific information.

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 19-parameter, zero-coverage tool with no output schema and no per-parameter documentation anywhere, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no basis to select the correct identifiers for verification, know what the response wrapper contains on success versus failure, or understand the openWorldHint implications.

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?

With 19 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and fails: it mentions only "**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., token)," which misdescribes the actual schema of 19 explicitly named, typed properties. It gives no hint whether runner_id, project_id, group_id, or token drive the verification, so the agent must guess which subset to supply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description's only substantive line, "Verify runner authentication," is verbatim the tool title, so it restates the name rather than explaining the operation. It never says what is being authenticated (a runner registration token against the instance endpoint?), nor whether verification is scoped to a project, group, or instance, leaving it indistinguishable from siblings such as gitlab_get_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 reference to any alternative tool. An agent cannot infer from the text whether to call this before or instead of gitlab_get_runner, gitlab_reset_project_runner_token, or gitlab_register_new_runner.

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

Deploy Server