CERN GitLab MCP Server

get_wiki_pages

Read-only

Retrieve project documentation from CERN GitLab wikis. List all wiki pages or fetch a specific page's content by slug.

Instructions

Access wiki pages from a CERN GitLab repository. Can list all wiki pages or retrieve the content of a specific page. Useful for accessing project documentation that lives in the wiki.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes	Project identifier — either a numeric ID (e.g. '12345') or a URL-encoded path (e.g. 'atlas/athena')
`page_slug`	No	Optional: slug of a specific wiki page to retrieve. If omitted, lists all wiki pages.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.3.0Aug 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / page_slug / default
```
Added value: +""
```
addedInput schema / properties / page_slug / title
```
Added value: +"Page Slug"
```

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 / title

Added value: +"get_wiki_pages_fnArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "get_wiki_pages_fnDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.6Mar 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral details. It does add the list-vs-retrieve mode distinction based on page_slug, but it does not disclose pagination, response shape, or other edge behavior. This matches the modest value expected when annotations already declare read-only semantics.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: a clear subject line, a functional summary of the two modes, and a useful context note. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes.

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 read-only wiki access tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema present, the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke it for listing or retrieving wiki pages without missing critical information.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both project and page_slug, including the default behavior for an omitted page_slug. The description restates the list-vs-specific behavior, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource ('wiki pages') and the exact operations (list all pages or retrieve a specific page's content), and ties it to CERN GitLab. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_readme and get_file_content by focusing on the wiki.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when the tool is useful: 'project documentation that lives in the wiki.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is enough for an agent to route wiki-related requests here.

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

Deploy Server