mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Group Tool

get_group_tool

Read-only

Retrieve GitLab group details by ID or path, optionally including projects, to inspect group structure and configuration for access checks or automation.

Instructions

Get GitLab group details by ID or path.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_group_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group_id`	Yes	Group ID (numeric) or path (e.g., "parent-group/child-group")
`with_projects`	No	Include group projects (default: true)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the safety profile, so the description only needed to add depth. It adds nothing: no note on whether an unknown path errors versus returns empty, no permission scoping, no indication of what 'details' includes. It merely restates the schema's lookup keys.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though it has no structure beyond the one clause and so has no room to route the agent anywhere.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema, full parameter descriptions and a read-only annotation, the definition is callable without ambiguity. It is still thin for a tool sitting among several group-scoped siblings—nothing explains the relationship to list_group_projects_tool or how the with_projects default affects the payload.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters and the path example are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID or path' echoes group_id without adding format or validation detail, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('GitLab group details') and names both lookup keys (ID or path), which cleanly separates it from list_groups_tool and list_group_projects_tool. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch metadata for one known group. There is no guidance on when to prefer list_groups_tool for discovery, or list_group_projects_tool when the caller only needs projects, despite both being close siblings.

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

Deploy Server