Skip to main content
Glama

get_file_contents

Retrieve file or directory contents from a GitLab project by specifying project ID, file path, and optional branch/tag reference.

Instructions

Get the contents of a file or directory from a GitLab project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
file_pathYesPath to the file or directory
refNoBranch/tag/commit to get contents from

Implementation Reference

  • The `getFileContents` function retrieves file/directory contents from a GitLab project using the GitLab API, parses the response with a Zod schema, and decodes base64 content if necessary.
    export async function getFileContents(projectId: string, filePath: string, ref?: string): Promise<GitLabContent> {
      if (!projectId?.trim()) {
        throw new Error("Project ID is required");
      }
      if (!filePath?.trim()) {
        throw new Error("File path is required");
      }
    
      const encodedPath = encodeFilePath(filePath);
      const endpoint = `/projects/${encodeProjectId(projectId)}/repository/files/${encodedPath}`;
      const refParam = ref || "HEAD";
    
      const data = await gitlabGet<GitLabContent>(`${endpoint}?ref=${encodeURIComponent(refParam)}`);
      const parsedData = GitLabContentSchema.parse(data);
    
      // Decode base64 content if it's a file
      if (!Array.isArray(parsedData) && parsedData.content) {
        parsedData.content = Buffer.from(parsedData.content, "base64").toString("utf8");
      }
    
      return parsedData;
    }
  • Defines `GetFileContentsSchema` for validating input arguments (project_id, file_path, and optional ref).
    export const GetFileContentsSchema = ProjectParamsSchema.extend({
      file_path: z.string().describe("Path to the file or directory"),
      ref: z.string().optional().describe("Branch/tag/commit to get contents from")
    });
  • src/server.ts:80-83 (registration)
    Registers the `get_file_contents` tool in the list of available tools.
      name: "get_file_contents",
      description: "Get the contents of a file or directory from a GitLab project",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(GetFileContentsSchema)
    },
  • Handles the `get_file_contents` request by parsing arguments and calling the `api.getFileContents` function.
    case "get_file_contents": {
      const args = GetFileContentsSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const contents = await api.getFileContents(args.project_id, args.file_path, args.ref);
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(contents, null, 2) }] };
    }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Get', implying a read operation without confirming safety, authentication needs, or potential side effects. Minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence, 11 words, no waste. Efficiently conveys the core purpose, though could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description should explain return value format or behavior (e.g., raw text, JSON, pagination). It only says 'get contents', leaving the agent uninformed about what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool gets 'contents of a file or directory from a GitLab project', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are all about creating or searching, not retrieving contents.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions provided. The description lacks any contextual cues for appropriate usage.

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