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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Release Tool

get_release_tool
Read-only

Retrieve a single GitLab release by tag name and project ID or path to inspect release details for that specific version.

Instructions

Get a single release by tag name.

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>",
      "tag_name": "<tag_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_release_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tag_nameYesTag associated with the release
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds only the lookup key (tag name) and says nothing about behavior when the tag is absent, permission requirements, or project scoping.

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 short sentence with no filler and the key information front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that it reads as minimal rather than carefully structured.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a declared output schema, little more is needed; return values need not be explained. The only real gap is what happens on a missing tag or wrong project, which is minor here.

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 both tag_name and project_id are already documented, and the description only echoes that the lookup key is a tag name. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the explanatory load.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Get a single release") and scopes it to lookup by tag name, which implicitly distinguishes it from list_releases_tool. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular/plural distinction is clear from the phrasing.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching one known release rather than enumerating releases. There is no explicit 'use this instead of list_releases_tool' guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the tag to already exist.

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