gitlab-mcp

Create Environment

gitlab_create_environment

Create a GitLab project environment with optional external URL, tier, description, Kubernetes namespace, and auto-stop settings to manage deployment environments.

Instructions

Create a project environment with optional external URL, tier, description, Kubernetes settings, and auto-stop behavior.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_create_environment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`tier`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No
`external_url`	No
`cluster_agent_id`	No
`auto_stop_setting`	No
`flux_resource_path`	No
`kubernetes_namespace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms a create/mutation operation and that the listed settings are optional, but adds nothing about what auto-stop actually does, what happens on duplicate names, or required auth scopes — modest added value beyond annotations.

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 the action first and the optional capabilities after — no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the enumeration of optional fields is the only content it delivers.

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 9-parameter mutating tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the required name/project scoping, the enum meanings, and what a successful creation returns. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at call correctness from bare field names.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the documentation burden and only partially discharges it. It names categories (external URL, tier, Kubernetes settings, auto-stop behavior) but omits the required 'name' and 'project_id' entirely and gives no semantics for the enum values ('always' vs 'with_action') or the http(s) URL constraint. It supplies a usable field map but no meaning beyond what the schema field names imply.

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 ('Create a project environment') and enumerates the capability surface (external URL, tier, description, Kubernetes settings, auto-stop), so an agent knows this is the creation tool among the environment siblings (get/update/delete/stop). It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer it over gitlab_update_environment, but the verb itself is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., project permissions or that the environment must not already exist), and no reference to sibling tools like gitlab_update_environment for modifying an existing environment. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server