gitlab-ci-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gitlab_update_schedule

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing GitLab CI/CD pipeline schedule by changing its cron, active state, ref, description, or variables; only supplied fields change and variables are replaced entirely.

Instructions

Update an existing schedule. Only provided fields change.

Destructive when variables is set: the entire variable set is replaced, so ensure the caller sends a full list.

Examples: - "Deactivate schedule 42" → schedule_id=42, active=False - "Change cron of schedule 42 to hourly" → schedule_id=42, cron='0 * * * *' - Don't pass variables unless you want to replace them entirely.

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": {
      "schedule_id": "<schedule_id>",
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_update_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	New ref (branch/tag).
`cron`	No	New cron expression.
`active`	No	New active state.
`variables`	No	New variable set. If provided, replaces all existing variables — pre-existing ones are deleted first. Omit to leave variables untouched.
`description`	No	New description.
`schedule_id`	Yes	Schedule ID to update.
`project_path`	Yes	GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). Required by default. For legacy deployments only, set GITLAB_ALLOW_DEFAULT_PROJECT=true to use GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH when omitted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`cron`	No
`active`	No
`status`	No
`description`	No
`schedule_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.5.5Nov 5, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / project_path / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / project_path / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / project_path / description

Previous value: -"GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). When omitted, the default from GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH env var is used."New value: +"GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). Required by default. For legacy deployments only, set GITLAB_ALLOW_DEFAULT_PROJECT=true to use GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH when omitted."

addedInput schema / properties / project_path / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_path / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "schedule_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "schedule_id",
+  "project_path"
+]

First observedv0.5.1Apr 17, 2026

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 idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to localize that risk — and it does: it names exactly which field is destructive ('variables' replaces the entire set, pre-existing ones deleted) and warns the caller to send a full list. It adds partial-update semantics beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about permissions, side effects on run history, or what the response contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then the destructive caveat, then examples — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The variables-replacement warning is stated twice (prose and bullet), a small redundancy, but each example carries concrete value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter partial-update mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the remaining agent-critical facts: partial-update semantics, the one dangerous parameter, and concrete value formats. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding operational meaning the schema does not — a concrete cron literal ('0 * * * *'), a boolean usage example for active, and a reinforced warning that omitting variables leaves them untouched. It does not explain ref semantics (branch vs tag resolution) beyond what the schema title says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing schedule') and immediately qualifies scope with 'Only provided fields change', which distinguishes it from a full-replace operation. It does not explicitly contrast with gitlab_create_schedule or gitlab_delete_schedule, so the sibling differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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?

The examples map natural-language intents ('Deactivate schedule 42', 'Change cron ... to hourly') directly onto parameter values, which is strong when-to-use guidance, and 'Don't pass variables unless you want to replace them entirely' is an explicit when-not-to. It lacks a pointer to the sibling to use for creating or deleting schedules, so routing among the four schedule tools is only partly covered.

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