Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gitlab_get_issue

Retrieve a GitLab issue by specifying the project ID and issue IID to get detailed issue information.

Instructions

Gets an issue (GET /projects/:id/issues/:iid).

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>",
      "issueIid": "<issueIid>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry the behavioral burden. The 'GET' verb does indicate a non-mutating read, which is useful, but nothing is said about return format, error behavior, permissions, or any other side-effect-relevant trait.

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?

A single, short sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 low-complexity read tool, the endpoint plus schema covers basic invocation. However, the absence of any return-value description and the undocumented issueIid parameter leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether the result satisfies a request.

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 coverage is only 50%; projectId has a description but issueIid does not. The description's endpoint pattern '/projects/:id/issues/:iid' mirrors the parameter names without explaining what an iid is or how it differs from an id, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets'), a clear resource ('an issue'), and the exact REST endpoint. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_merge_request or gitlab_create_issue.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The endpoint makes the basic use obvious, but no decision support is 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