Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_repository

Create a new GitLab project with specified name, visibility, and namespace. Use this action to set up a repository or initialize with a README.

Instructions

Create a new GitLab project. 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
nameYesRepository name
visibilityNoRepository visibility level
descriptionNoRepository description
namespace_idNoGroup namespace ID to create the project in. Omit to use the current user's namespace.
initialize_with_readmeNoInitialize with README.md

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.62
    • addedInput schema / properties / namespace_id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.26
    • addedInput schema / properties / namespace_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Group namespace ID to create the project in. Omit to use the current user's namespace.",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond the openWorldHint annotation by disclosing that it changes remote GitLab state, requires permissions, and returns validation/conflict/permission/rate-limit errors instead of silently failing. This is useful behavioral context for the agent.

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 starts with a clear purpose and provides usage guidance, but the final sentence about project_id/group_id and pagination fields is irrelevant and confusing. It adds noise without earning its place, reducing overall conciseness.

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 the core purpose, usage guidance, and error behavior, but the misleading parameter reference creates a gap that could lead an agent to look for non-existent fields. It also does not mention what happens on success (e.g., returned project object), though with no output schema this may be less critical. Overall, it is adequate 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. However, the description includes a confusing reference to 'project_id' or 'group_id' and 'pagination fields' that do not exist in the schema (only namespace_id is present). This adds misleading guidance that could misdirect the agent, and it does not clarify any of the actual parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new GitLab project.' It also distinguishes this from update/edit tools, making it easy for an agent to select this tool for new resources and the update tool for existing ones.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for a new resource or action') and when not to ('choose the corresponding update or edit tool when the resource already exists'). This directly routes the agent to the correct alternative.

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