CERN GitLab MCP Server

inspect_project

Read-only

Analyze a CERN GitLab repository to understand its structure, build system, dependencies, and CI/CD setup in one summary.

Instructions

Analyze a CERN GitLab repository to understand its structure, build system, and dependencies. Combines functionality of dependency analysis, build config detection, and CI/CD inspection into a single tool. Returns a comprehensive summary of the project's technical stack.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No	Branch name, tag, or commit SHA (default: project's default branch)
`project`	Yes	Project identifier — either a numeric ID (e.g. '12345') or a URL-encoded path (e.g. 'atlas/athena')

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

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: +"inspect_project_fnArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.1.6Mar 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing that this tool aggregates multiple analysis capabilities and returns a summary, which is behavior beyond a simple read. It does not discuss cost, time, or details of what the analysis inspects, but the output schema covers return shape.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, scope/behavior, and return value. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an aggregating inspection tool, the description is largely complete: it names the analytical dimensions, states the summary output, and the output schema covers the return structure. It could be slightly stronger by referencing specific sibling tools to guide selection, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 both 'project' and 'ref' are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('a CERN GitLab repository') and defines the output (structure, build system, dependencies, technical stack). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it combines functionality that would otherwise require multiple tools.

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 to use the tool: when a comprehensive project stack overview is needed, covering dependencies, build config, and CI/CD. It implies this is the umbrella tool versus more granular siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server