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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Project Tool

get_project_tool
Read-only

Retrieve GitLab project details by numeric ID or group/project path to inspect project metadata for integrations needing project context.

Instructions

Get GitLab project 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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID (numeric) or path (e.g., "group/project")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond it: no mention of permissions/visibility requirements, not-found behavior for bad IDs, or what 'details' comprises. The only substantive content (ID or path) duplicates the schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the guidance gaps noted above.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient. What is missing is routing context against the many project-related siblings.

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 the single parameter's description already spells out numeric ID versus path format with an example. The description restates that same fact without adding format rules or edge cases, so 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 (GitLab project details) and names the identifier forms it accepts (ID or path). This implicitly contrasts with list_projects_tool, though it never names that sibling or any other, so it stops 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: an agent can infer this is the single-project lookup versus list_projects_tool or get_group_tool, but the description never states when to use it or when a sibling is preferable. No prerequisites, no exclusions.

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