gitlab-mcp

Trigger Pipeline With Token

gitlab_trigger_pipeline

Trigger a GitLab pipeline using a pipeline trigger token or CI/CD job token, enabling external systems and multi-project pipelines to start CI/CD runs.

Instructions

Start a pipeline with a pipeline trigger token or CI/CD job token, as used by external systems and multi-project pipelines. Use gitlab_create_pipeline when acting with your own credentials. The token is sent in the request body and never echoed.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_trigger_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes
`token`	Yes
`inputs`	No
`variables`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses the security-relevant behavior that the token travels in the request body and is never echoed back. It stops short of stating that repeated invocations create additional pipelines (non-idempotency) or which permissions the token must hold, which would be useful for a mutating, open-world tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the alternative and a security note. No filler or repetition of the name or title.

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?

The behavioral and routing picture is solid for a mutating tool, but with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, omitting any explanation of 'ref', 'variables', 'inputs', and 'project_id' leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation. An agent would have to guess formats such as branch/tag naming or variable typing.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the burden, but it only explains 'token' (trigger token or CI/CD job token, body-transported, not echoed). The required 'ref' parameter and the 'variables', 'inputs', and 'project_id' parameters receive no explanation at all, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Start a pipeline') and immediately distinguishes two credential modes (pipeline trigger token vs. CI/CD job token) that define the tool's scope. It also names the sibling it is not, so an agent can differentiate it from gitlab_create_pipeline without inspecting schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('as used by external systems and multi-project pipelines') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('Use gitlab_create_pipeline when acting with your own credentials'). That is a complete routing rule for the main ambiguity between these two siblings.

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

Deploy Server