Gitlab

Gitlab Get Project

gitlab_get_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get details for a specific GitLab project (e.g., project ID "123" or path "group/project"). Returns name, description, visibility, stars, forks, and default branch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Project ID (numeric) or URL-encoded path (e.g., "group%2Fproject")
`_apiKey`	Yes	GitLab personal access token

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Project ID
`url`	Yes	Project web URL
`name`	Yes	Project name
`forks`	Yes	Fork count
`stars`	Yes	Star count
`topics`	Yes	Project topics/tags
`archived`	Yes	Whether project is archived
`full_path`	Yes	Full path with namespace
`namespace`	Yes	Namespace full path
`created_at`	Yes	Project creation timestamp
`visibility`	Yes	Project visibility (public/private/internal)
`description`	Yes	Project description
`open_issues`	Yes	Open issues count
`last_activity`	Yes	Last activity timestamp
`default_branch`	Yes	Default branch name

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, auth specifics, or side effects. It provides return field examples, but with an output schema, this is redundant.

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 a single sentence that concisely states the purpose and key input flexibility. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. No fluff.

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?

With strong annotations, complete schema, and an output schema for return values, the description covers the essential need-to-know information. However, it does not mention failure conditions or explicitly guide tool selection among GitLab siblings, which would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including examples and encoding requirements. The description reiterates the id format but adds no new semantic information. Therefore it meets the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific GitLab project'), with explicit input formats (ID or path). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_list_projects and gitlab_get_file by focusing on a single project's details.

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 conveys a clear use case: retrieving details of one specific project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'specific' implies contrast with listing tools. Since sibling names are available, the agent can infer when to use this tool, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

All Gitlab tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded which are near-identical in function. The polymarket_* family also has several members with closely related scopes, and the large number of data-query tools makes it hard to choose the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), others are noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), and proper-noun prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are used liberally. The gitlab_* tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but the rest of the set is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given that only 5 are GitLab-related while the rest are a sprawling data-access toolkit. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants), and the count exceeds what is reasonable for a focused GitLab server.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Gitlab, the coverage is severely incomplete: only list/get operations exist for projects, issues, and MRs, with no create, update, or delete capabilities. The broader data tools are more complete, but the nominal purpose of the server is clearly not fulfilled.

Gitlab Get Project

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources