gitlab-api

Get project deploy token

gitlab_get_project_deploy_token

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific deploy token for a GitLab project to inspect its name, token, scopes, and expiration.

Instructions

Get a specific deploy token for a project.

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

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

Raises: ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided. MissingParameterError: If required parameters are missing.

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_project_deploy_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`page`	No
`token`	No
`scopes`	No
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`username`	No
`max_pages`	No
`expires_at`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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 safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by stating the return shape (a wrapper containing the response and a DeployToken model) and the error conditions (ParameterError, MissingParameterError), but says nothing about permissions or the sensitivity of the returned token value.

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?

The description is short and conventionally structured, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args/Returns/Raises scaffolding is boilerplate and the Args section in particular carries no information, but the total length is not excessive.

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?

For a 10-parameter read tool with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description leaves the core question unanswered: which argument actually identifies the single token to fetch. The misleading kwargs guidance compounds the gap rather than closing it.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description had to carry the full burden and does not. Worse, it describes the interface as '**kwargs (e.g., project_id, deploy_token_id)', yet the schema is a closed object with additionalProperties: false and contains no deploy_token_id at all, so the guidance points at a parameter that cannot be passed.

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 and resource ('Get a specific deploy token for a project'), and 'specific' implicitly contrasts with the plural listing tools. However, it never names the sibling list tools (gitlab_get_project_deploy_tokens, gitlab_get_group_deploy_token) that an agent would have to choose between.

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 versus gitlab_get_project_deploy_tokens, gitlab_get_group_deploy_token, or gitlab_delete_project_deploy_token. The only implied guidance is the word 'specific', leaving the agent to infer the single-vs-list selection on its own.

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

Deploy Server