Skip to main content
Glama

Delete Job Tool

delete_job_tool

Deletes a GitLab CI/CD job's artifacts and trace log for a specified project and job, helping clean up pipeline data.

Instructions

Delete a CI/CD job's artifacts and trace log.

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>",
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_job_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesJob ID
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important destruction scope—artifacts and trace log—but omits irreversibility, required permissions, and whether the job record itself remains, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The operation and destruction scope are immediately clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is complete, so return-value details need not appear. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations, the description should say more about safety, permissions, or sibling-tool alternatives to be fully complete.

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 project_id and job_id are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource: deleting a CI/CD job's artifacts and trace log. It usefully clarifies that the target is the job's artifacts/log rather than simply the job record, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like cancel_job_tool or retry_job_tool.

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 tool versus cancel_job_tool, retry_job_tool, or delete_pipeline_tool. The implied use case is cleanup of artifacts/logs, but the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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