Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by mcpland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Pipeline Metadata

gitlab_update_pipeline_metadata

Rename a GitLab pipeline and change only its name, leaving other pipeline data unchanged.

Instructions

Rename a pipeline. Only the pipeline name can be changed.

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": {
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_update_pipeline_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
project_idNo
pipeline_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-read-only, open-world mutation. The description usefully adds the boundary that only the name field is mutatable, which prevents wasted attempts at other fields, but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what happens to the rest of the pipeline object.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope limit. No filler whatsoever.

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 simple rename mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action and its constraint. It falls short on identifier semantics for the three undocumented parameters and on any behavioral notes, which matters given zero schema coverage.

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 the parameter burden, and it only partially does. It clarifies that "name" is the sole editable field, but leaves pipeline_id and the optional project_id (and what omitting project_id implies) entirely unexplained.

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 ("Rename") and resource ("pipeline"), which is more precise than the name's generic "update metadata". It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like gitlab_update_pipeline_schedule or gitlab_update_pipeline_trigger, but the scope constraint is clear enough to select it.

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 mention of prerequisites, permissions, or when a different update tool would be appropriate. The only guidance is the negative constraint that nothing but the name can be changed.

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