gitlab-api

Get tag

gitlab_get_tag

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details for a specific GitLab project tag, including its commit and release information. Use project ID and tag name to inspect a tag's metadata.

Instructions

Get information about a specific tag in a project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id or name 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_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`tag`	No
`page`	No
`message`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	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

C2.8/5.0

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 value by disclosing the return shape (a wrapper containing the original response and a Tag model) and the failure modes (MissingParameterError, ParameterError), which annotations do not convey. It still says nothing about authentication, pagination behavior despite page/per_page/max_pages being present, or what a missing tag returns.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the rest is auto-generated docstring boilerplate, including a useless '**kwargs' entry that contradicts the schema's additionalProperties=false. The Args/Returns/Raises scaffolding is acceptable but not efficiently written for an agent reader.

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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description would need to explain the parameters and the pagination model; instead it explains only the return wrapper and error types. The 'name' vs 'tag' mismatch leaves an agent guessing at the identifier argument for the tool's core 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 7 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails it. It names project_id and 'name', but the schema exposes 'tag' with no 'name' property, creating a real ambiguity about which field identifies the tag, and ref, message, page, per_page and max_pages are never explained (message in particular is a create-tag field that looks out of place on a read tool).

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 information about a specific tag in a project'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool gitlab_get_tags and from mutation siblings like gitlab_create_tag/gitlab_delete_tag. However, it never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gitlab_get_tags, gitlab_get_release_by_tag, or gitlab_api_request. The only usable signal is the implied requirement for project_id and name, conveyed indirectly through the Raises section.

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

Deploy Server