Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by mcpland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Unprotect Tag

gitlab_unprotect_tag
Destructive

Remove protection from a GitLab tag name or wildcard so any developer can create matching tags. Use gitlab_get_protected_tag first to verify the current protection.

Instructions

Remove protection from a tag name or wildcard, allowing any developer to create matching tags. Requires name. Recommended pre-check: gitlab_get_protected_tag.

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_unprotect_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes beyond them by spelling out the access-control consequence (any developer can then create matching tags) and by suggesting a verification step before acting. It leaves unclear whether the call errors on an unprotected tag and under which project scope it operates.

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 with zero filler; the effect of the operation is front-loaded and the pre-check recommendation follows naturally.

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?

For a destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the core is present. However, project scoping and the failure mode for a non-protected or nonexistent tag name remain undocumented, which an agent needs before invoking a protective-control-removing tool.

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 covers 'name' only partially (noting wildcard support) and says nothing about 'project_id' — not its format, nor what happens when it is omitted (personal namespace vs. a specific project), which is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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 ('Remove protection from a tag name or wildcard') and adds the concrete consequence ('allowing any developer to create matching tags'), which makes it unmistakable from gitlab_protect_tag or gitlab_delete_tag.

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?

It gives a clear recommended pre-check ('gitlab_get_protected_tag') and states the one requirement ('Requires name'), so the agent knows how to prepare the call. It does not say what happens if the tag is not currently protected or name an alternative for that case, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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