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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get User Tool

get_user_tool
Read-only

Retrieves a specific GitLab user by ID, enabling lookup of account details for a known user identifier.

Instructions

Get a specific GitLab user 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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesUser ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 read, and an output schema exists so return shape need not be described. The description adds nothing beyond the name—no note about not-found behavior or whether the ID is a global numeric user ID versus a username—but little is left uncovered.

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 wasted words, and the key qualifier ('by ID') is present. It is efficiently sized, though it is so terse that it carries almost no routing information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this is minimally adequate. The main missing piece is disambiguation from get_current_user_tool and list_users_tool, which the description does not address.

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 only parameter (user_id, integer, minimum 1) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by ID' reinforces which identifier is expected but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, 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 and resource ('Get a specific GitLab user by ID'), so the agent knows it is a single-user lookup rather than a collection listing. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings get_current_user_tool and list_users_tool.

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?

The phrase 'by ID' hints that this is an ID-keyed lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives. An agent must infer that list_users_tool is for enumeration and get_current_user_tool is for the authenticated account.

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