@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

create_epic

Create a new epic in a GitLab group with title, description, labels, and dates. Use dry-run to preview before actual creation.

Instructions

Creer un nouvel epic dans un groupe GitLab. Par defaut dry_run=true : retourne un apercu sans creer. Passer dry_run=false apres confirmation.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`group_id`	Yes	ID ou chemin URL du groupe GitLab (ex: '42' ou 'wanadev/kp1'). Si vous n'avez que le nom, appelez d'abord list_groups pour trouver le chemin exact.
`title`	Yes	Titre de l'epic
`description`	No	Description de l'epic (Markdown)
`labels`	No	Labels separes par virgule
`start_date`	No	Date de debut (YYYY-MM-DD)
`due_date`	No	Date d'echeance (YYYY-MM-DD)
`dry_run`	No	Dry 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.

First observedv1.8.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of 'creates' is consistent. It adds the dry_run behavior, which is a useful transparency detail. However, it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or what the actual creation response contains beyond a preview, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, immediately stating the core purpose and the critical dry_run behavior. Every word is essential, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the dry_run pattern but omits what the tool returns when dry_run=false, how errors are handled, or any side effects. It adds minimal context beyond the schema and annotations, making it merely adequate.

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 the description is not required to explain parameters. It mentions dry_run's default value, which is already in the schema, so it adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 'creates a new epic in a GitLab group' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_epic or close_epic. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other epic-related tools, preventing a top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a dry_run workflow hint ('preview first, then confirm'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites such as needing the group_id. It implies a use-after-confirmation pattern but does not cover when to avoid this tool.

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

Deploy Server