Skip to main content
Glama

GitLab MCP Server

by io.github.jmrplens

GitLab Find Action

gitlab_find_action
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the local GitLab action catalog. Read-only and no GitLab API call. Use when the action ID or params are unclear. Returns schemas, hints, destructive flags, and execute examples.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of matches to return. Defaults to 20 and is capped at 50.
queryYesSearch terms combining a GitLab domain or resource with a verb, filter, or object name, such as project create, merge request approve, pipeline retry, issue delete, or ci variable.
explainNoWhen true, include deterministic scoring reasons for each returned action. Defaults to false to keep responses compact.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of returned matches.
queryYesOriginal search query.
resultsYesMatching GitLab catalog actions with schemas and execute examples.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by clarifying that this is a local catalog search with no GitLab API call, and by enumerating what the response includes. This meaningfully supplements 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?

The description is four short sentences, each earning its place: what it does, side effects or lack of API call, when to use it, and what it returns. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundant detail.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells an agent enough to select the tool and invoke it correctly, including its local non-API nature and what kind of results to expect.

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 parameter descriptions already fully document the query, limit, and explain parameters. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond this, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('local GitLab action catalog'), clearly distinguishing it from gitlab_execute_action by noting it is read-only and makes no API call. It explains exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the action ID or params are unclear.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention the sibling tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GitLab MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct role: one locates/describes catalog actions, the other executes them. There is no overlap in purpose or behavior.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the gitlab_verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, and the action/find_action verbs clearly indicate their operations.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is below the typical well-scoped range, but the design intentionally uses a catalog dispatcher rather than individual endpoints. It feels minimal yet justified; a third tool for listing catalog contents directly would round it out.

Completeness4/5

The execute_action tool effectively covers any GitLab operation available in the catalog, so there are no obvious missing actions. The only minor gap is agent reliance on discovery through find_action since no direct listing/search-by-entity surface exists.

Resources