Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

unprotect_branch

Destructive

Remove branch protection to allow unrestricted pushes and merges. Specify project and branch to lift security controls when policy permits.

Instructions

Remove protection from a previously protected branch. Use this to remove protection from an existing branch; use protect_branch to change access levels without removing the rule. The operation changes repository security controls, requires permission to manage protected branches, and returns the result or an error when the branch is missing or policy forbids the change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
branch_nameYesName of the protected branch to unprotect

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: -[
-  "branch_name",
-  "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "branch_name"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.21

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful context on top: it changes repository security controls, requires permission to manage protected branches, and reports errors for missing branches or policy restrictions. This gives the agent clear expectations beyond the structured metadata.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the primary action first, then the alternative, then behavioral and error context. Every sentence contributes useful information for selection or invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and existing annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, alternative usage, permissions, security implications, and error conditions. No output schema exists, but the mention of return error cases helps compensate without over-explaining.

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 schema already documents project_id and branch_name clearly. The description adds context about the operation's purpose but no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove protection from a previously protected branch.' It clearly distinguishes itself from protect_branch by noting that protect_branch changes access levels without removing the rule, so an agent can select the correct sibling.

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 says when to use this tool: to remove protection from an existing branch, and names the alternative for a different goal: use protect_branch to change access levels without removing the rule. This is direct when/when-not guidance with no inference required.

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