Skip to main content
Glama

Gitlab Public

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Project

get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full details for a public GitLab project by ID or path (e.g., "gitlab-org%2Fgitlab"). Returns name, description, stars, forks, default branch, topics, and last activity date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProject numeric ID or URL-encoded path (e.g., "gitlab-org%2Fgitlab")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProject numeric ID
urlYesProject web URL
nameYesProject name
forksYesFork count
starsYesStar count
topicsYesProject topics/tags
archivedYesWhether the project is archived
full_pathYesProject path with namespace
namespaceYesProject namespace full path
created_atYesISO timestamp of creation
visibilityYesProject visibility (public, private, etc.)
descriptionYesProject description
open_issuesYesOpen issues count
last_activityYesISO timestamp of last activity
default_branchYesDefault branch name

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that only public projects are accessible and details specific return fields (name, stars, forks, etc.), providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, front-loads the core action. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Given low complexity, single parameter, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers enough: purpose, input format, and return fields. Could mention error conditions but not necessary for basic use.

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 covers parameter fully with 100% coverage. Description reinforces by mentioning 'by ID or path' and giving an example, but adds minimal new semantic information beyond the schema.

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?

Description specifies 'Get full details for a public GitLab project by ID or path', clearly stating the verb and resource. It lists returned fields, distinguishing from sibling search_projects which searches multiple projects.

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?

Indicates usage for public projects via 'by ID or path' and includes an example. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but implicitly excludes private projects. Alternatives like search_projects exist but no direct comparison.

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

All Gitlab Public 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The vast majority of tools are unrelated to GitLab and cover overlapping domains (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several Polymarket tools, memory tools). Only three GitLab-specific tools exist, and they are distinct from each other, but overall the set is highly heterogeneous and ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of conventions: some are snake_case (ask_pipeworx, search_issues), some are compound nouns (get_project, list_subscriptions), and a few are single words (forget, recall). There is no consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

Despite the server name 'Gitlab Public', only 3 out of 34 tools are related to GitLab. The remaining 31 tools are a collection of unrelated services (Pipeworx data retrieval, Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility). This is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its tool composition.

Completeness1/5

For a GitLab public server, essential tools like project creation, deletion, user management, and merge request handling are completely missing. The Pipeworx tools, while numerous, lack a clear cohesive scope and overlap significantly with each other.

Resources