Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_group

Create a new GitLab group or subgroup, specifying parent for subgroups and visibility, with validation and error handling from GitLab.

Instructions

Create new group or subgroup. 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
nameYesThe name of the group
pathYesThe path of the group
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
parent_idNoThe parent group ID for creating a subgroup
visibilityNoThe group's visibility level
descriptionNoThe group's description

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. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.13

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating that the tool 'changes remote GitLab state,' requires permission, and that GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, and rate-limit errors rather than silently accepting invalid requests. It does not cover idempotency or duplicate handling, but the major behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 reasonably brief and front-loads the core purpose, but the final sentence about identifiers and pagination is boilerplate that does not apply to this schema. It adds noise without earning its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, mutation side effects, permissions, and error behavior. However, with no output schema, it never states what a successful create returns, and the irrelevant parameter guidance leaves a gap. It is sufficient for a competent call, but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a confusing and partially misleading sentence referencing 'project_id' or 'group_id' and 'pagination fields' that do not appear anywhere in the input schema. It also adds no real semantic value to important parameters like parent_id beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create new group or subgroup.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_repository, create_issue, or create_merge_request, and clarifies that it covers both top-level groups and subgroups.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says to use this tool for new resources and to choose the corresponding update or edit tool when the resource already exists. The guidance is clear, though it does not name the exact sibling update tool, which keeps it from being a full 5.

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