gitlab-api

Get latest release evidence

gitlab_get_latest_release_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches evidence for a project's current GitLab release, returning raw evidence data to verify release artifacts and compliance records.

Instructions

Get evidence for the latest release in a project.

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

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and the raw evidence data.

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_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_latest_release_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`data`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`simple`	No
`group_id`	No
`order_by`	No
`per_page`	No
`tag_name`	No
`max_pages`	No
`milestones`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No
`released_at`	No
`tag_message`	No
`total_pages`	No
`direct_asset_path`	No
`include_html_description`	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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the failure mode (MissingParameterError when project_id is absent) and the wrapper-shaped response, but says nothing about pagination, evidence contents, or how 'latest' is determined.

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 one-line purpose statement is well front-loaded, but the Args/Returns/Raises block is boilerplate that spends its Args slot on a vague '**kwargs' catch-all instead of the actual parameters. It is short, but part of that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

A 19-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions needs the description to do heavy lifting, and it does not. An agent can tell roughly what the tool fetches, but cannot know what most parameters do, what the evidence payload contains, or how to page through results.

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 19 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only project_id is mentioned, through a vague **kwargs example, leaving ref, data, name, page, sort, simple, order_by, per_page, max_pages, tag_name, and the rest entirely undefined for the caller.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (get) and resource (evidence for the latest release) scoped to a project, which is clearer than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as gitlab_get_latest_release, gitlab_get_latest_release_asset, or gitlab_create_release_evidence, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus gitlab_get_latest_release (release metadata) or gitlab_get_latest_release_asset (assets). The only usage-adjacent signal is the 'e.g., project_id' hint, which is a parameter example rather than routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server