Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by mcpland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Wait for Job

gitlab_wait_for_job
Read-onlyIdempotent

Polls a GitLab job until it reaches a final status or the timeout elapses, returning the last status so you can wait for completion without manual checks.

Instructions

Poll a job until it reaches success, failed, canceled, skipped, or manual, or until timeout_seconds (default 60, max 300) elapses. Returns completed=false with the last status on timeout; call again to keep waiting.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_wait_for_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes
project_idNo
timeout_secondsNo
poll_interval_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior on top: the default 60s timeout, the 300s ceiling, the poll-until-terminal semantics, and the timeout return contract (completed=false plus last status). The only gap is the shape of a successful return and what happens at the 'manual' state, which matters for deciding whether to continue.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler, front-loading the polling contract and terminal states before the timeout/return details. The default and max are inlined parenthetically rather than in a separate clause, keeping it dense but readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns and it does so only for the timeout case, not the success case. Combined with 0% parameter documentation for project_id and poll_interval_seconds, an agent can call the tool but cannot fully predict its result or tune its behavior.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains timeout_seconds (adding the non-schema default of 60 and restating the 300 cap). job_id, project_id (which accepts null) and poll_interval_seconds are entirely undocumented anywhere, so the agent must guess at project scoping and polling cadence.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Poll a job') and enumerates the exact terminal states it waits for (success, failed, canceled, skipped, manual), which clearly separates block-until-done behavior from a one-shot job status read. It stops short of naming the sibling it displaces (e.g., gitlab_get_pipeline_job), so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

It gives one actionable usage rule: on timeout with completed=false, 'call again to keep waiting,' which tells the agent how to continue polling. It offers no guidance on when this tool is preferable to a plain status lookup, nor when not to use it (e.g., for non-blocking checks), leaving the choice between siblings implied.

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