dev.mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gitlab_add_commit

Create a GitLab commit by specifying project, branch, message, and file actions. Supports creating, updating, deleting, moving, or changing file modes in a single commit.

Instructions

Creates a commit with actions (POST /repository/commits).

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "branch": "<branch>",
      "commitMessage": "<commitMessage>",
      "actions": "<actions>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_add_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`branch`	Yes
`actions`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes	Numeric ID or path with namespace, e.g. group/project.
`startBranch`	No
`commitMessage`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state that this is a mutating operation that creates a commit, but it does not disclose effects on the target branch, required permissions, or what happens when the commit is created.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint, which is useful context without adding unnecessary length.

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?

For a mutating operation with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context about required parameters, action semantics, branch behavior, and return values, leaving an agent under-informed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, with only projectId described. The description adds little beyond the word 'actions' and does not explain branch, startBranch, commitMessage, or the structure and allowed values of actions. It fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a commit with actions' and includes the exact endpoint '(POST /repository/commits)'. This is clear and distinct enough from siblings like gitlab_add_branch or gitlab_get_commit.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for creating new commits on a GitLab branch, nor does it contrast with gitlab_add_branch, gitlab_save_merge_request, or other commit-related operations.

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

Deploy Server