GitLab MCP Server

get_project

Retrieve details of a specific GitLab project by providing its full path, such as 'group/project'.

Instructions

Get details of a specific GitLab project.

Args: project_path: Full path of the project (e.g., 'group/project' or 'user/project')

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`topics`	No
`web_url`	Yes
`created_at`	No
`visibility`	No
`description`	No
`default_branch`	No
`last_activity_at`	No
`path_with_namespace`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, which is adequate but lacks explicit confirmation of non-destructiveness or permissions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise at two sentences, but omits potential helpful details like a note on behavior or when to use. It is not verbose, but could be more efficient by including essential guidance.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and parameter format. Could include a note about read-only nature but not necessary.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The parameter 'project_path' is described with context ('Full path of the project (e.g., 'group/project' or 'user/project')'), adding significant value beyond the schema's title alone, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states 'Get details of a specific GitLab project' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or other get_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., list_projects for exploring projects or get_issue for other resources). Context is implied but not explicit.

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