md-gitlab-mcp

get_merge_request_by_url

Fetch merge request details directly from a full GitLab merge request URL. Provide a specific MR link to get its information without searching.

Instructions

Fetch merge request details using a full URL

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "get_merge_request_by_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full GitLab Merge Request URL (e.g. 'https://gitlab.com/owner/repo/-/merge_requests/123'). Use this if you have the URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description clearly frames this as a read-only fetch operation, which is the main behavioral trait. With no annotations, it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or access requirements, but for a simple single-URL fetch tool this is reasonably adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that captures the action, target resource, and input requirement without any filler. It is concise while still being informative.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter tool, the essential invocation information is present. However, there is no output schema and the description only says 'details' without indicating what the response contains or how this tool differs from get_merge_request, leaving minor completeness gaps.

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?

The input schema already covers the only parameter fully with a clear description and an example URL. The tool description adds the requirement that the URL be 'full,' providing a small but useful extra constraint beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('merge request details') and identifies the distinguishing input mechanism ('full URL'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_merge_request tool.

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 parameter description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this if you have the URL.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, though it does not mention alternatives for cases where only a merge request ID is available.

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