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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Project Tool

create_project_tool

Creates a new GitLab project with configurable name, visibility, description, namespace, and optional README initialization.

Instructions

Create a new GitLab project.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesProject name
visibilityNoVisibility level (public, internal, private)private
descriptionNoProject description
namespace_idNoNamespace ID to create the project under (group or user)
initialize_with_readmeNoInitialize with a README file (default: false)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / namespace_id / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. 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 disclosure burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not state that this is an irreversible mutation, what permissions or scopes are needed, whether the project defaults into the caller's personal namespace, or what side effects (e.g. default branch, README) result.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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?

A creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output-schema substitute for behavioral detail. Given five parameters with meaningful defaults and namespace semantics, the description should at minimum cover permissions, namespace behavior, and mutation effects; it covers none.

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% with all five parameters documented, including defaults for visibility, description, namespace_id and initialize_with_readme, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it does not explain, for example, how namespace_id interacts with namespace selection versus the default user namespace.

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 ('Create a new GitLab project'), which clearly separates it from create_issue_tool, create_merge_request_tool and other creation siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with get_project_tool / list_projects_tool / delete_project_tool, but the create verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_projects_tool (to check for an existing project) or list_group_projects_tool, and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or when a namespace_id must be supplied. The agent must infer all of this.

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