gitlab-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_project

Create a GitLab project by specifying name, visibility, description, and namespace. Streamline version control and team collaboration.

Instructions

프로젝트 생성

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	프로젝트 이름
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`visibility`	No	공개 범위
`description`	No	프로젝트 설명
`namespace_id`	No	네임스페이스(그룹) ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the obvious action (creating a project) but does not mention side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or irreversible consequences. A tool that creates resources should clarify that it modifies data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single phrase ('Create project'), which is overly minimal. While concise, it does not provide enough information to be useful. It should include at least one sentence explaining the tool's purpose or usage context.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns project details), any restrictions, or required inputs. It fails to provide a complete picture, leaving agents with insufficient context.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

Description states 'Create project', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly indicates the tool's action, but does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., why use this over create_issue?). While the name itself is descriptive, the description lacks context to distinguish it from similar creation tools.

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 tool versus alternatives like create_issue or create_merge_request. Prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions) are not mentioned, nor are any conditions for successful use.

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