Skip to main content
Glama

create_repository

Create a new GitLab project with customizable visibility, description, and README initialization to organize code repositories.

Instructions

Create a new GitLab project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRepository name
descriptionNoRepository description
visibilityNoRepository visibility level
initialize_with_readmeNoInitialize with README.md

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the 'createRepository' tool which uses gitlabPost to call the GitLab API to create a new project.
    export async function createRepository(options: CreateRepositoryOptions): Promise<GitLabRepository> {
      if (!options?.name?.trim()) {
        throw new Error("Repository name is required");
      }
    
      const repository = await gitlabPost<GitLabRepository>("/projects", {
        name: options.name,
        description: options.description,
        visibility: options.visibility,
        initialize_with_readme: options.initialize_with_readme
      });
    
      return GitLabRepositorySchema.parse(repository);
    }
  • src/server.ts:249-253 (registration)
    The handler case for 'create_repository' within the MCP server's CallToolRequest handler.
    case "create_repository": {
      const args = CreateRepositorySchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const repository = await api.createRepository(args);
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(repository, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • The Zod schema definition for 'CreateRepositorySchema' used for input validation of the 'create_repository' tool.
    export const CreateRepositorySchema = z.object({
      name: z.string().describe("Repository name"),
      description: z.string().optional().describe("Repository description"),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a project ID). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error conditions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of creating a repository and the lack of structured data, more context is needed for effective use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain default values or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fork_repository' by specifying creation rather than forking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_label', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions), nor does it contrast with similar tools like 'fork_repository' for creating repositories from existing ones. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TheRealChrisThomas/gitlab-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server