CERN GitLab MCP Server

list_releases

Read-only

Retrieve release tags, dates, and descriptions from a CERN GitLab repository to track software versions and find changelogs. Specify a project ID or path to get release history.

Instructions

List releases from a CERN GitLab repository. Returns release tags, dates, and descriptions. Useful for tracking software versions and finding changelogs.

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')
`per_page`	No	Number of releases to return

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.0Aug 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Added value: +20
```

changedInput schema / properties / per_page / description

Previous value: -"Number of releases to return (default: 20, max: 100)"New value: +"Number of releases to return"

addedInput schema / properties / per_page / title
```
Added value: +"Per Page"
```

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: +"list_releases_fnArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.1.6Mar 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the main safety trait, and the description adds that it returns tags, dates, and descriptions. However, it does not disclose behavior such as pagination limits, ordering, or that the result is a list rather than a single release; 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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and output, and the final sentence identifies practical use. Every sentence contributes and there is no filler.

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 a simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only minor gap is that it does not suggest the sibling tool get_release for retrieving one release in detail, but this is not required for calling the tool 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 project and per_page are already fully documented with types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 description names the specific action (list), the resource (releases from a CERN GitLab repository), and the expected output (release tags, dates, descriptions). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_release or list_tags, which keeps it from a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear intended use cases: tracking software versions and finding changelogs. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative like get_release for a single release, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server