Skip to main content
Glama

Release

gitlab_release
Destructive

Create, update, and manage GitLab releases with asset links. Publish releases from tags or refs, attach binaries and runbooks.

Instructions

Use {"action":"create","params":{...}}; only top-level keys are action and params. Action params schema: gitlab://schema/meta/gitlab_release/.

Manage GitLab releases and their asset links (binaries, packages, runbooks). Releases wrap a Git tag with notes, milestones and downloadable assets. Delete is destructive: it removes the release but preserves the underlying tag. When to use: publish a release for a tag, create a release and its tag from a ref, list/get/update releases, attach asset links to a release, batch-attach links after a CI build. NOT for: uploading binaries to the package registry (use gitlab_package), milestones (use gitlab_project milestone_*).

Returns:

  • list: array of releases with pagination.

  • get / get_latest / create / update: release object {name, tag_name, description, released_at, assets: {sources, links}, evidences, milestones}.

  • link_list: array of {id, name, url, link_type, direct_asset_path}.

  • link_create / link_create_batch / link_get / link_update: link object(s).

  • delete / link_delete: {success: bool, message: string}. Errors: 404 not found (hint: verify tag_name), 403 forbidden (hint: requires Developer+ for create, Maintainer+ for update/delete), 400 invalid params (hint: link url must be absolute https://).

Param conventions: * = required. All actions need project_id*. Release actions need tag_name*. Link actions need tag_name* + link_id* (except link_create / link_create_batch / link_list).

Releases:

  • create: project_id*, tag_name*, ref (branch/SHA when tag_name does not exist or the prompt says from ref), name, description (Markdown), released_at (ISO 8601), milestones ([]string), tag_message

  • get: project_id*, tag_name*

  • get_latest: project_id*

  • list: project_id*, order_by (released_at/created_at), sort (asc/desc), page, per_page

  • update: project_id*, tag_name*, name, description, released_at, milestones

  • delete: project_id*, tag_name*

Asset links:

  • link_create: project_id*, tag_name*, name*, url*, link_type (runbook/package/image/other), filepath, direct_asset_path

  • link_create_batch: project_id*, tag_name*, links* (array of {name, url, link_type, filepath, direct_asset_path})

  • link_get: project_id*, tag_name*, link_id*

  • link_list: project_id*, tag_name*, page, per_page

  • link_update: project_id*, tag_name*, link_id*, name, url, filepath, direct_asset_path, link_type

  • link_delete: project_id*, tag_name*, link_id*

See also: gitlab_tag (standalone tag CRUD), gitlab_package (upload binaries; link_create can point at the package URL), gitlab_project (milestones referenced by releases).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform. Pick exactly one of the values in `enum`. Each action expects its own `params` object — see the tool description for the per-action parameter list.
paramsNoAction-specific parameters as a JSON object. Required and optional fields differ per action. This envelope schema stays broad; runtime validation applies the chosen action's schema after reserved meta keys like `confirm` are stripped. For the JSON Schema of a specific action's `params`, read the MCP resource `gitlab://schema/meta/{tool}/{action}` (replace placeholders with the tool name and the chosen action).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
next_stepsNoOptional. Suggested follow-up actions or tool calls for the LLM, contextual to the result.
paginationNoPresent on list actions. Use `has_more` and `next_page` to paginate through results.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly states that delete operations are destructive but preserve the underlying tag. It also details required permissions (Developer+ for create, Maintainer+ for update/delete) and typical error responses with hints, which adds significant context beyond the annotation alone.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-organized: it starts with the envelope format, then provides usage context, return types, errors, and exhaustive per-action parameter lists. Every sentence serves a purpose, though some minor repetition exists (e.g., 'project_id*' repeated across actions). Could be slightly tightened without loss.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (12 actions, nested objects, asset links), the description covers all aspects: actions, parameters, return types, error handling, authentication prerequisites, and links to related tools. The presence of an output schema does not diminish the need for summary descriptions, which are provided (e.g., 'Returns: array of releases with pagination').

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has a generic params object with 100% coverage but no per-action constraints. The description compensates by providing a detailed breakdown of required and optional parameters for each action (e.g., create requires tag_name, ref is optional; link_create requires name and url). This is essential for correct invocation.

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 begins by clearly stating the tool's function: 'Manage GitLab releases and their asset links'. It then provides a comprehensive list of actions, differentiating from sibling tools like gitlab_tag and gitlab_package, which serve distinct purposes (standalone tag CRUD and uploading binaries, respectively).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' and 'NOT for' sections provide clear guidance on appropriate scenarios and exclude related tasks that belong to other tools (e.g., milestones via gitlab_project). Additionally, error hints with troubleshooting suggestions offer further decision support.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jmrplens/gitlab-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server