Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gitlab_get_commit

Retrieve a GitLab commit's details by SHA, including metadata and optional stats. Provide project ID or namespace path and commit SHA to inspect changes.

Instructions

Gets a commit (GET /repository/commits/:sha).

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "sha": "<sha>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_get_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shaYes
statsNo
projectIdYesNumeric ID or path with namespace, e.g. group/project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals the HTTP method GET and the targeted endpoint, which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, with no annotations at all, it does not disclose what commit data is returned, how the 'stats' parameter affects behavior, or any error/rate-limit considerations.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and endpoint are front-loaded, and every part contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more weight. It fails to explain the response shape, the role of 'stats', or how projectId is used in the endpoint, leaving an agent with significant gaps for correct invocation and result interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%; only projectId is described. The description does indicate that sha is part of the URL path, adding some meaning, but the 'stats' boolean parameter remains entirely unexplained in both description and schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Gets') and the resource ('a commit'), and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint 'GET /repository/commits/:sha'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_add_commit and gitlab_get_merge_request without requiring schema inspection.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are many GitLab sibling tools that could overlap. No when-to-use criteria, exclusions, or alternative tool names are provided.

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