gitlab-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_repository_file

Access file contents directly from a GitLab repository by providing the project ID and file path, with optional branch or commit reference.

Instructions

Read the content of a specific file from 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>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "read_repository_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The project ID or path (e.g., 'username/repo-name')
`file_path`	Yes	Path to the file to read
`ref`	No	Branch, tag, or commit SHA	main

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Read') but misses behavioral details such as file size limits, encoding, binary support, required permissions, or error conditions. This lack of depth limits the agent's ability to anticipate behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It states the basic action but does not cover common usage patterns, return format, or edge cases. While the tool is low complexity, the description leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional value is given by the description.

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 clear verb ('Read') and specifies the resource ('content of a specific file from a GitLab repository'). It is distinct from sibling 'read_repository_code' by specifying 'file' vs 'code', and no other sibling reads file content. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of when not to use it. The agent gets no contextual help for decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server