gitlab-api

Get runner

gitlab_get_runner

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves details for a specific GitLab runner by runner ID, returning its configuration and status information.

Instructions

Get information about a specific runner.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the runner_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_runner"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`info`	No
`token`	No
`active`	No
`locked`	No
`paused`	No
`status`	No
`group_id`	No
`tag_list`	No
`max_pages`	No
`runner_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`all_runners`	No
`description`	No
`runner_type`	No
`access_level`	No
`run_untagged`	No
`maximum_timeout`	No
`maintenance_note`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / all_runners / default
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +null
```

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

addedInput schema / properties / max_pages

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns a wrapper containing a Runner model and raises MissingParameterError or ParameterError, but it does not cover authentication requirements, permissions, or the returned fields in meaningful depth.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns/Raises block is compact. The generic '**kwargs' phrasing is slightly awkward against the explicit schema, but the description is not bloated.

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 tool with a 19-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It mentions the Runner model wrapper and the missing runner_id error, but it does not explain most parameters or clarify why filter-oriented fields are present on a single-runner lookup.

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 must compensate but only mentions runner_id as an example. It leaves the other 18 optional parameters undocumented, so the reader cannot infer what active, locked, status, tag_list, max_pages, and similar fields mean.

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 opening line states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('specific runner'), and it distinguishes the single-runner scope from list tools such as gitlab_get_runners. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the intended purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by 'specific runner' and the error when runner_id is missing. The description does not say when to prefer this over gitlab_get_runners, gitlab_get_project_runners, or gitlab_get_runner_jobs.

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

Deploy Server