gitlab-ci-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gitlab_ci_mcp_check_updates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether updates are available for gitlab-ci-mcp when enabled. Runs only on request, defaults off, and never installs or starts updates automatically.

Instructions

Check updates when enabled; defaults off and never installs or runs at startup.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_ci_mcp_check_updates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cached`	No
`detail`	No
`status`	No
`release_url`	No
`latest_version`	No
`install_command`	No
`update_available`	No
`installed_version`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.5Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful constraints beyond that: it defaults off and never installs or runs at startup. It does not detail network behavior or check frequency, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded. The 'when enabled' clause is slightly ambiguous, but there is no wasted wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a low-complexity zero-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations. The description covers default-off and no-install/startup behavior; it omits what 'enabled' means and what the update check entails, but it is adequate overall.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there are no parameters to describe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a check operation but leaves the resource ambiguous: 'updates' is not identified as gitlab-ci-mcp updates in the description itself. It does not differentiate this self-update check from the many GitLab CI sibling tools, though the tool name provides some context.

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 only usage condition given is 'when enabled' and that it defaults off. There is no explicit guidance on when to call it, what prerequisites enable it, or how it relates to alternatives.

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