delete_broadcast_messageDeletes a GitLab broadcast message by its ID. Use when an administrator needs to remove an existing broadcast message from the instance.
Delete a GitLab broadcast message by ID. Requires administrator privileges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Broadcast message ID | |
| userCredentials | No | Your GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / id / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991Input schema / properties / userCredentials / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "accessToken": {
- "minLength": 1,
- "type": "string"
- },
- "gitlabUrl": {
- "format": "uri",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "accessToken": {
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "gitlabUrl": {
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds the admin-requirement context, which the annotations do not carry, but says nothing about irreversibility, confirm-deletion behavior, or error responses.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and identifier front-loaded and the privilege constraint second. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-entity delete with a fully described two-parameter schema, explicit destructive/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it. Only the failure/missing-record behavior is unstated, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: both the integer `id` and the optional `userCredentials` fallback are fully documented in the schema. The description's "by ID" restates the schema and adds no format or behavioral detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ("Delete a GitLab broadcast message") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which separates it from get_broadcast_message and list_broadcast_messages. It does not explicitly route to update_broadcast_message or list_broadcast_messages, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The admin privilege line implies a precondition for calling it, but the description never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update to hide a message instead of deleting it) or what happens when the ID does not exist. Usage is only implied from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.