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

gitlab-readonly-mcp

by igordev96
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Fetch a repository now

sync_repo

Fetches a project immediately, bypassing freshness policy and TTL, to refresh manual-policy projects or check for new refs. Reports fetch failures as errors rather than serving cached content.

Instructions

Fetch a project immediately, ignoring its freshness policy — the way to refresh a project whose policy is manual, and to check for new refs without waiting for the TTL. A mirror-backed project is cloned if its mirror is missing; a project registered as a local clone is fetched from that clone's own remote. Unlike a read, a failure is reported as an error rather than answered from the cached copy, because this call exists to fetch.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sync_repo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoGitLab project path, e.g. 'group/subgroup/repo'. Defaults to GITLAB_DEFAULT_PROJECT.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: errors are surfaced instead of served from cache, mirrors are cloned if missing, and local clones fetch from their own remote. It omits auth/permission expectations, which keeps it out of the top band.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: the immediate-fetch purpose first, then the mirror/local-clone behavior, then the error-vs-cache distinction. No filler and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effects, and error semantics well. It doesn't indicate what a successful fetch returns (e.g., updated refs), but that is a minor gap given the annotations and the tool's narrow scope.

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 the single `project` parameter and its `GITLAB_DEFAULT_PROJECT` default are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a project immediately, ignoring its freshness policy') and pins down the exact scenarios (manual-policy refresh, new-refs check). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings such as get_file, log, and list_refs because it performs an actual fetch rather than a cached read.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: a project whose policy is `manual`, or checking new refs without waiting for the TTL. It also contrasts with 'a read' that answers from the cached copy. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops just short of full when-not/alternative routing.

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