Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_label

Destructive

Delete a label from a GitLab project using its ID or title. Verify the target first, then remove it permanently; requires project permissions.

Instructions

Delete a label from a project. Use this only after verifying the target; choose a get or list tool first when you need to inspect state without changing it. It changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible; it requires the necessary project or group permission and returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors. 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
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
label_idYesThe ID or title of a project's label
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path

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. Addedv2.1.45
  3. Removedv2.1.43
  4. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "label_id"
+]
  9. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it changes or removes remote GitLab data, may be irreversible, requires permissions, and may return validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors. This is valuable beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 first sentence is strong and front-loaded, and the safety and error information is useful. However, the final sentence contains redundant boilerplate ('described by the schema', 'exactly as documented') and references pagination fields irrelevant to this tool, making the definition less tight than it should be for a simple delete operation.

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?

The definition covers purpose, when to use it, destructive scope, irreversibility, permissions, and likely error types. The main gaps are the absence of a success return description (no output schema is present) and the misleading mention of group_id/pagination, which slightly undermines completeness for such a simple tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema's project_id guidance ('numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path'), and it mentions group_id and pagination fields that do not exist in this tool's schema, adding confusion rather than concrete parameter value.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a label from a project.' It clearly distinguishes this from read-only siblings and from update_label/create_label by naming the destructive action and stating it operates on a project label.

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?

The description explicitly instructs when to avoid using the tool ('only after verifying the target') and directs the agent to get or list tools when inspection is needed. It also frames destructive usage with permission requirements, giving the agent a clear decision boundary.

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