CERN GitLab MCP Server

search_projects

Read-only

Find public CERN GitLab projects by keyword, topic, or programming language to discover high-energy physics code, analysis frameworks, and tools.

Instructions

Search for public CERN GitLab projects (which contain repositories, issues, wikis, etc.) by keywords, topics, or programming language. Useful for discovering HEP code, analysis frameworks, and physics tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order`	No	Sort order	desc
`query`	No	Search query string (matches project name, description, etc.)
`topic`	No	Filter by project topic/tag (e.g. 'physics', 'root', 'atlas')
`sort_by`	No	Sort results by this field	last_activity_at
`language`	No	Filter by primary programming language (e.g. 'python', 'c++', 'java')
`per_page`	No	Number of results to return

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed18 schema fields changedv0.3.0Aug 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / language / default
```
Added value: +""
```
addedInput schema / properties / language / title
```
Added value: +"Language"
```
addedInput schema / properties / order / default
```
Added value: +"desc"
```

changedInput schema / properties / order / description

Previous value: -"Sort order (default: desc)"New value: +"Sort order"

addedInput schema / properties / order / title
```
Added value: +"Order"
```
addedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Added value: +20
```

changedInput schema / properties / per_page / description

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

addedInput schema / properties / per_page / title
```
Added value: +"Per Page"
```
addedInput schema / properties / query / default
```
Added value: +""
```
addedInput schema / properties / query / title
```
Added value: +"Query"
```
addedInput schema / properties / sort_by / default
```
Added value: +"last_activity_at"
```

changedInput schema / properties / sort_by / description

Previous value: -"Sort results by this field (default: last_activity_at)"New value: +"Sort results by this field"

addedInput schema / properties / sort_by / title
```
Added value: +"Sort By"
```
addedInput schema / properties / topic / default
```
Added value: +""
```
addedInput schema / properties / topic / title
```
Added value: +"Topic"
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[]
```

addedInput schema / title

Added value: +"search_projects_fnArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "search_projects_fnOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.6Mar 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Description adds meaningful constraints beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by specifying that only 'public CERN GitLab projects' are searched and that matching is by keywords/topics/language. This tells the agent about the restricted scope and that no private-project access is involved. No mention of pagination or response structure, but output schema covers the response and the safety profile is already annotated.

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 sentences with no redundant information; the first front-loads the tool's function and scope, the second adds a use-case signal. Every word adds value.

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 read-only search tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, public scope, and typical applications. It doesn't explicitly route between search_* siblings, which is the main remaining gap, but the resource-level wording ('projects' vs. code/issues) gives strong contextual hints.

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% and the description's mention of keywords/topics/language mirrors the query, topic, and language parameters without adding new syntax or edge-case details. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('public CERN GitLab projects'), and the available filter dimensions (keywords, topics, language). It also clarifies that projects contain repositories/issues/wikis, which helps distinguish from code- or issue-level search tools, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'Useful for discovering HEP code, analysis frameworks, and physics tools' conveys typical use cases but doesn't state when to prefer search_projects over search_code, search_issues, or search_lhcb_stack, nor any exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server