Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_delete_trigger_token

Remove a pipeline trigger token from a GitLab project by specifying the project ID and trigger ID using the GitLab MCP Server.

Instructions

Delete a pipeline trigger token

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe ID or URL-encoded path of the project
trigger_idYesThe ID of the trigger

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that validates parameters, calls ciCdManager.deleteTriggerToken to delete the trigger token, and returns formatted response.
     */
    export const deleteTriggerToken: ToolHandler = async (params, context) => {
      const { project_id, trigger_id } = params.arguments || {};
      if (!project_id || !trigger_id) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, 'project_id and trigger_id are required');
      }
      
      const data = await context.ciCdManager.deleteTriggerToken(project_id as string | number, trigger_id as number);
      return formatResponse(data);
    };
    
    /**
  • Input schema definition specifying required project_id and trigger_id parameters for the tool.
    {
      name: 'gitlab_delete_trigger_token',
      description: 'Delete a pipeline trigger token',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID or URL-encoded path of the project'
          },
          trigger_id: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'The ID of the trigger'
          }
        },
        required: ['project_id', 'trigger_id']
      }
    },
  • Tool registration mapping 'gitlab_delete_trigger_token' to the cicdHandlers.deleteTriggerToken function.
    gitlab_delete_trigger_token: cicdHandlers.deleteTriggerToken,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated pipelines. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether the action is permanent, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. Given the complexity of a deletion operation and the lack of structured coverage, the description should provide more contextual information.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (project_id and trigger_id) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a pipeline trigger token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like gitlab_delete_cicd_variable or gitlab_delete_webhook, which would require mentioning the specific resource type being deleted.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing trigger token), when not to use it, or what happens after deletion. Given the sibling tools include gitlab_get_trigger_token and gitlab_update_trigger_token, some differentiation would be helpful.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rifqi96/mcp-gitlab'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server