mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Retry Pipeline Tool

retry_pipeline_tool

Retry all failed jobs in a GitLab CI/CD pipeline by providing the project and pipeline IDs to recover from transient failures.

Instructions

Retry all failed jobs in a 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>",
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>"
    },
    "name": "retry_pipeline_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID or path
`pipeline_id`	Yes	Pipeline ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0Oct 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / pipeline_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
First observedv0.4.1Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only failed jobs are retried (not a full pipeline rerun), which is real behavioral information, but it says nothing about permissions required, behavior when no jobs have failed, or whether retries are idempotent.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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, so return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. But for an unannotated mutation tool, the description is thin on side effects and preconditions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With schema description coverage at 100% and only two straightforward parameters, the schema does the work; the description adds the pipeline-scoping context. Baseline of 3 is met, with the scope statement giving slight extra value beyond the schema.

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 (failed jobs in a pipeline) with an explicit scope qualifier ('all failed jobs'). The scope implicitly separates it from retry_job_tool, which retries a single job, but the sibling is never named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'all failed jobs in a CI/CD pipeline' implies when the tool applies (bulk retry of failures), and the existence of retry_job_tool nearby makes the choice inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative is given.

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

Deploy Server