Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by mcpland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete Project Snippet

gitlab_delete_project_snippet
Destructive

Permanently delete a GitLab project snippet and all its files by snippet_id. This action is irreversible, so verify the snippet before deleting.

Instructions

Delete a project snippet and all of its files permanently. Irreversible. Requires snippet_id. Recommended pre-check: gitlab_get_project_snippet.

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": {
      "snippet_id": "<snippet_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_delete_project_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNo
snippet_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context: deletion is permanent, irreversible, and removes all attached files. It does not cover permission requirements or the error/return behavior on failure.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and irreversibility before the parameter note and pre-check advice. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the essential risk profile and a recommended pre-check. The only material hole is the undocumented project_id, which an agent must infer from the schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only restates that snippet_id is required, which the schema already enforces via required, and never mentions the nullable project_id parameter at all, leaving an ambiguous second argument entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a project snippet') plus scope ('all of its files permanently'), which cleanly separates it from the get/create/update snippet siblings. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly recommends the pre-check call gitlab_get_project_snippet before deleting, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what happens if the snippet does not exist, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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