Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_branch

Create a new branch from a specified ref, with a safety dry-run mode to preview before execution.

Instructions

Create a new branch from a ref. dry_run=true by default.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "create_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
nameYesNew branch name
refYesSource ref (branch, tag, or commit SHA)
dry_runNoDry run mode (default: true). When true, returns a preview of the action without executing it. Set to false only after user confirmation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotation indicates a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds critical safety behavior: 'dry_run=true by default.' The parameter schema further explains that false requires user confirmation, providing transparency beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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-load essential information: the action and the default behavior. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description omits return value details. For a creation tool, mentioning that a branch object is returned would be helpful. However, the dry_run behavior is well-covered, partially compensating.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new information beyond the schema's detailed parameter descriptions, which already explain the 'dry_run' behavior and required fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new branch') and the source ('from a ref'). It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools that involve different actions (e.g., merge, commit, list).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_merge_request or list_branches. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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