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

gitlab-mcp-server

by kopiloto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_merge_request_analytics

Calculate merge request lifetime metrics including time to merge and review duration to identify process bottlenecks in a GitLab repository.

Instructions

Calculate merge request lifetime analytics for a GitLab repository.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_merge_request_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe project ID or path (e.g., 'username/repo-name')
days_backNoNumber of days back to analyze (default: 90)
per_pageNoNumber of merge requests to fetch per page (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'calculate... analytics' without disclosing read-only nature, rate limits, or output format. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, though a bit more detail would be beneficial without sacrificing brevity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the return value contains (e.g., average time to merge, distribution). It lacks this information, making it incomplete for a calculation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already document all three parameters (project_id, days_back, per_page).

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 clearly states the tool calculates merge request lifetime analytics, specifying the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'merge request analytics'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_merge_requests by focusing on analytics rather than listing.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the description (for analytics), but there is no mention of when not to use it or of sibling tools like list_merge_requests as an alternative.

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