gitlab-api

Get group level rule

gitlab_get_group_level_rule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves group-level merge request approval settings for a GitLab group, including approval rules and related options.

Instructions

Get details of a group-level merge request approval setting.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., group_id).

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a MergeRequestRuleSettings model.

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the group_id is missing. ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_get_group_level_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`group_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`allow_author_approval`	No
`allow_committer_approval`	No
`retain_approvals_on_push`	No
`selective_code_owner_removals`	No
`require_reauthentication_to_approve`	No
`allow_overrides_to_approver_list_per_merge_request`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the two failure modes (MissingParameterError for missing group_id, ParameterError for invalid params) and the MergeRequestRuleSettings return model. It does not explain why a GET takes seven boolean approval flags or how group_id and project_id interact.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, but the Args/Returns/Raises docstring block spends lines on a generic '**kwargs' that does not correspond to the flat schema, while the parameters that actually matter go unaddressed. Space is allocated to boilerplate rather than to the ambiguous fields.

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?

As a read-only GET the annotations carry the risk profile, and with no output schema the description usefully names the returned MergeRequestRuleSettings wrapper. However, for a nine-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, leaving seven booleans and project_id unexplained means an agent cannot confidently construct a call.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across nine parameters, and the description only mentions group_id. The seven boolean fields (allow_author_approval, retain_approvals_on_push, etc.) and the project_id parameter receive no explanation anywhere, so an agent cannot tell whether they are filters, overrides, or ignored on a read. The '**kwargs' framing also mismatches the schema's explicit named properties.

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 ('Get details of a group-level merge request approval setting'), and the 'group-level' qualifier implicitly separates it from the project-level and merge-request-level siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the reader noticing the scope word.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus gitlab_get_project_level_rule, gitlab_get_project_level_merge_request_rule, or gitlab_get_merge_request_level_rules. The only usable routing hint is that group_id is required (via the Raises section), which is a precondition rather than usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server