Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_commit_status

Set or update a GitLab commit's CI status to pending, running, success, failed, canceled, or skipped using the project ID and commit SHA.

Instructions

Create or update the status of a commit. Use this for a new resource or action; choose the corresponding update or edit tool when the resource already exists. It changes remote GitLab state and requires the necessary project or group permission; GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying an invalid request. When project_id or group_id is accepted, provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema; use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoThe branch or tag ref
shaYesThe commit hash to set the status on
nameNoStatus name. GitLab defaults to 'default' when omitted.
stateYesCommit status state
contextNoAlias for name. Provide either name or context, not both.
coverageNoTotal code coverage for this status
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
target_urlNoTarget URL associated with this status
descriptionNoShort status description
pipeline_idNoPipeline ID to attach the status to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.62
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "sha",
-  "state",
-  "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "sha",
+  "state"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.45
  4. Removedv2.1.43
  5. Addedv2.1.18
  6. Removedv2.1.14
  7. Addedv2.1.11
  8. Removedv2.1.10
  9. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly says the tool changes remote GitLab state, requires project or group permission, and surfaces GitLab's error behavior (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit) instead of silently applying invalid requests. This adds real behavioral context well beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive annotations, which here are absent; it covers mutation, auth needs, and error mode without contradicting the openWorldHint annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and contains a good behavioral sentence about state change and errors. However, the final sentence drifts into boilerplate about 'required identifiers and pagination fields' and mentions group_id where the schema does not accept one, making the structure less disciplined than it could be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description still covers what the tool does, when to use it, that it mutates remote state, what permissions are needed, and how errors surface. It is incomplete only in that it does not resolve the discrepancy between the described update behavior and the absence of a dedicated update alternative in the sibling tool list.

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 schema already documents all parameters and parameter semantics, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds a useful note about numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths, but it also references group_id and pagination fields in a way that is generic and not represented in the schema, so its added value over the schema is only partial.

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 first sentence names a specific resource ('status of a commit') and an explicit action ('Create or update'), so the agent can tell what the tool acts on. It also tries to position this against an update/edit alternative, distinguishing it from list-only commit status tools. It loses a point because 'create or update' is immediately undercut by the instruction to prefer an update/edit tool for existing resources, and no corresponding update_commit_status sibling exists in the tool list.

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 states a clear new-vs-existing rule: use this for a new resource or action, and choose the update or edit tool when the resource already exists. However, the alternative is referenced generically rather than by name, and the sibling set has no update_commit_status tool, making the guidance less actionable and slightly inconsistent with the claim that this tool can already update.

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