Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Pipeline Tool

create_pipeline_tool

Triggers a new GitLab CI/CD pipeline for a specified project and branch or tag, defaulting to main.

Instructions

Create (trigger) a new CI/CD pipeline.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_pipeline_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoBranch or tag name to run the pipeline for (default: main)main
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Saying 'create (trigger)' implies a mutating action that starts CI/CD execution, but it does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, idempotency, or what happens to an already-running pipeline.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, and the parenthetical 'trigger' usefully clarifies the operation.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are well documented. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse: it lacks usage boundaries, prerequisites, and behavioral details needed to invoke it confidently.

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%, and both project_id and ref are fully documented in the schema, including the default value for ref. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: create/trigger a CI/CD pipeline. It distinguishes the operation from read-oriented siblings like list_pipelines_tool and get_pipeline_tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from retry_pipeline_tool or other pipeline mutations.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_pipelines_tool, retry_pipeline_tool, cancel_pipeline_tool, or any other sibling. It also omits prerequisites such as project access or branch/ref selection context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools