Skip to main content
Glama
sumirati

MCP-gitlab

by sumirati
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

create_project_variable

Create a new CI/CD project variable of env_var or file type, with masking, protection, and environment scope options to configure pipeline secrets.

Instructions

Create a new CI/CD project variable (env_var or file)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesVariable key/name (e.g. 'DATABASE_URL')
rawYesIf true, variable value is not expanded
valueYesVariable value
maskedYesIf true, variable value is masked in job logs
protectedYesIf true, variable is only passed to pipelines running on protected branches/tags
project_idYesProject numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically.
descriptionNoOptional description of the variable purpose
variable_typeYesVariable type: 'env_var' or 'file' (default: env_var)env_var
environment_scopeYesEnvironment scope for the variable (default: '*')*

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to. It does not mention required permission level (e.g. maintainer), whether duplicate keys are rejected or overwritten, or any side effects of the protected/masked flags.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse for an 8-required-parameter mutation, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 8 required parameters, and no output schema, the description should say more about permissions, failure modes, and side effects. It leaves too much unstated for the complexity involved.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description's mention of 'env_var or file' merely restates the variable_type enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('CI/CD project variable') and even names the two supported variable kinds. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_project_variable or delete_project_variable, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus update_project_variable, no mention of prerequisites, and no note about what happens if the key already exists. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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