Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Pipeline Tool

get_pipeline_tool
Read-only

Retrieve a single GitLab CI/CD pipeline by project ID or path and pipeline ID to inspect its status and details.

Instructions

Get a single CI/CD pipeline by ID.

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_id": "<project_id>",
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_pipeline_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID or path
pipeline_idYesPipeline ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / pipeline_id / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for invalid IDs, access requirements, or what a single result entails — so it does not earn credit beyond the structured fields.

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 no wasted words; size is appropriate for a simple lookup tool, though it errs toward under-specification rather than richness.

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?

With annotations covering read-only semantics, a rich input schema, and an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. It is adequate for this simple tool, though it could note failure modes.

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% and both parameters (project_id, pipeline_id) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single CI/CD pipeline) scoped by ID, which separates it from list_pipelines_tool. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but the singular/ID framing makes the distinction clear.

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 'by ID' qualifier implies you should use this when you already have a pipeline identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to alternatives such as list_pipelines_tool for discovery.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools