Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_get_branch_details

Retrieve detailed information about a specific branch in a GitLab project, including commit history and metadata, for integration with Jira workflows.

Instructions

Gets detailed information about a specific branch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesThe path of the GitLab project.
branchNameYesThe name of the branch.

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that calls the GitLab API to retrieve details for a specific branch in a project.
    async getBranchDetails(projectPath: string, branchName: string): Promise<any> {
      const encodedProjectPath = encodeURIComponent(projectPath);
      const encodedBranchName = encodeURIComponent(branchName);
      return this.callGitLabApi<any>(
        `projects/${encodedProjectPath}/repository/branches/${encodedBranchName}`,
      );
    }
  • src/index.ts:1937-1951 (registration)
    The registration and dispatch handler in the MCP server that calls the GitLabService.getBranchDetails method.
    case 'gitlab_get_branch_details': {
      if (!gitlabService) {
        throw new Error('GitLab service is not initialized.');
      }
      const { projectPath, branchName } = args as { projectPath: string; branchName: string };
      const result = await gitlabService.getBranchDetails(projectPath, branchName);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The tool definition including name, description, and input schema for validation.
    {
      name: 'gitlab_get_branch_details',
      description: 'Gets detailed information about a specific branch.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          projectPath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The path of the GitLab project.',
          },
          branchName: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The name of the branch.',
          },
        },
        required: ['projectPath', 'branchName'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., commit history, protection status). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' returns (e.g., JSON structure, fields like last commit or merge status), which is critical for a tool with no output schema. For a read operation with 2 parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both required parameters ('projectPath' and 'branchName'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Gets detailed information') and resource ('about a specific branch'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_branches' or 'gitlab_get_file_content', which would require more specific language about what 'detailed information' entails.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_branches' (for listing branches) or 'gitlab_get_file_content' (for branch-specific file details), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a specific branch name rather than exploring available branches first.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/HainanZhao/mcp-gitlab-jira'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server