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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Retry Job Tool

retry_job_tool

Retries a specific failed CI/CD job using project and job ID, enabling recovery from transient failures.

Instructions

Retry a specific failed CI/CD job.

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": "retry_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

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. It says nothing about whether retry creates a new job or reuses the ID, whether the job must currently be in a failed state, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required.

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 and the verb first. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations the description leaves out state preconditions, side effects, and failure behavior. An agent cannot confidently predict what calling it does beyond 'retry'.

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%, documenting job_id and project_id (ID or path), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, which is acceptable at baseline 3 given full coverage.

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 (retry) and resource (a specific failed CI/CD job), which is clearly distinct from retry_pipeline_tool and cancel_job_tool. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 word 'failed' implies a precondition, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions (e.g., when to use retry_pipeline_tool instead), and no prerequisites such as required job state or permissions.

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