Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by mcpland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Wait for Pipeline

gitlab_wait_for_pipeline
Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll a GitLab pipeline until it succeeds, fails, is canceled, skipped, or needs manual action, or until the timeout elapses; call again after a timeout to continue waiting.

Instructions

Poll a pipeline 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": {
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_wait_for_pipeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNo
pipeline_idYes
timeout_secondsNo
poll_interval_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the terminal statuses, the default and maximum timeout, and the timeout return behavior (completed=false with last status). The instruction to call again on timeout adds useful behavioral context for an agent.

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 compact sentences with the core polling behavior and timeout return semantics front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

The description covers the main polling lifecycle and timeout behavior, but with no output schema it does not fully describe the success return shape. It is also incomplete on parameter semantics, especially project_id and poll_interval_seconds.

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 must carry parameter meaning, but it only documents timeout_seconds behavior. It says nothing about project_id, pipeline_id, or poll_interval_seconds, leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 a specific action and resource: polling a pipeline until terminal states or timeout. It names the terminal statuses and the timeout condition, so an agent can distinguish this from a one-shot get_pipeline call without relying on the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the polling use case, the timeout behavior, and explicitly says to call again to keep waiting. It does not name alternatives or explain when not to use it, but the operational guidance is clear.

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