Skip to main content
Glama
MohamedElashri

CERN GitLab MCP Server

by MohamedElashri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_project_readme

Read-only

Retrieve the README content of any CERN GitLab project to understand what it does. Automatically detects standard README filenames and returns the raw content.

Instructions

Get the README file content for a CERN GitLab project. Automatically detects standard README filenames (README.md, README.rst, etc.). Returns the raw content — useful for understanding what a project does.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoBranch name, tag, or commit SHA (default: project's default branch)
projectYesProject identifier — either a numeric ID (e.g. '12345') or a URL-encoded path (e.g. 'atlas/athena')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Previous value: -"Project identifier — either a numeric ID (e.g. '12345') or a path (e.g. 'atlas/athena')"New value: +"Project identifier — either a numeric ID (e.g. '12345') or a URL-encoded path (e.g. 'atlas/athena')"
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / title
      Added value: +"Project"
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref / default
      Added value: +""
    • addedInput schema / properties / ref / title
      Added value: +"Ref"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"get_project_readme_fnArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "get_project_readme_fnDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes the read-only safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing automatic README filename detection and that it returns raw content rather than a parsed summary.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences lead with the primary action and then cover behavior and purpose. There is no filler or redundant restating of schema information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description supplies all necessary context. It states what is returned, that standard filenames are auto-detected, and why it is useful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Get the README file content') against a concrete resource ('CERN GitLab project'). The mention of automatically detecting standard README filenames further differentiates it from path-based sibling tools like get_file_content.

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?

The description implies a clear use case ('useful for understanding what a project does') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file_content, get_project_info, or search_projects. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools