cicd-aiops

project_detail

Read-only

Retrieve a GitLab or Gitea project's details, including repository and artifact byte counts, by project ID or full path for CI/CD bloat and cost checks.

Instructions

[READ] One project's detail incl. repo/artifact byte counts.

Args: project: Project id or full path ('group/project' / 'owner/repo'). target: Server target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "project_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe read profile, so the annotation carries the safety burden. The description adds useful content context (byte counts for repo/artifacts) but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. Adequate given the annotation coverage, but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the read tag and core purpose, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; the format is clean and scannable.

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?

For a simple single-entity read with no output schema, the description covers the resource, what it returns, and the full parameter contract. Only minor gaps remain, such as precise returned fields and error cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, documenting both parameters. It gives the project format with concrete examples ('group/project' / 'owner/repo') and explains that target is a config server name that may be omitted for the default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('One project's detail') and previews the payload ('repo/artifact byte counts'). The singular 'One project's' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_projects, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this over list_projects or other detail tools like pipeline_detail. The '[READ]' tag mirrors the annotation rather than clarifying usage context or prerequisites.

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