gitlab-ci-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gitlab_get_file

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a text file from a GitLab repository at a specified branch, tag, or commit to inspect source or configuration content, truncated to 500 lines.

Instructions

Read a text file from the repository, truncated to 500 lines.

For binaries, gets decoded as UTF-8 with errors replaced — you will likely get garbage; use for text content only.

Examples: - "Show me .gitlab-ci.yml on master" → file_path='.gitlab-ci.yml' - "Read src/app.py from the release-1.2 tag" → file_path='src/app.py', ref='release-1.2' - Don't use for listings — use gitlab_list_repository_tree.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_get_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No	Branch, tag or commit SHA.	master
`file_path`	Yes	Path to the file from the repo root (e.g. 'src/app.py').
`project_path`	Yes	GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). Required by default. For legacy deployments only, set GITLAB_ALLOW_DEFAULT_PROJECT=true to use GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH when omitted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes
`size`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`total_lines`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.5.5Nov 5, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / project_path / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / project_path / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / project_path / description

Previous value: -"GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). When omitted, the default from GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH env var is used."New value: +"GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). Required by default. For legacy deployments only, set GITLAB_ALLOW_DEFAULT_PROJECT=true to use GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH when omitted."

addedInput schema / properties / project_path / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_path / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "file_path"
-]New value: +[
+  "file_path",
+  "project_path"
+]

First observedv0.5.1Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 500-line truncation limit and the fact that binaries are decoded as UTF-8 with replacement characters, producing garbage. It stops short of mentioning permission requirements, but for a read tool that is a minor gap.

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 core constraint and the binary warning are front-loaded, and the examples are compact and directly actionable. The example block is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every line maps to a real invocation pattern rather than restating the name.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the truncation and encoding caveats an agent must know before calling. The only missing piece is any note on access permissions or error behavior for nonexistent paths/refs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by showing concrete example values for file_path and ref (e.g. '.gitlab-ci.yml', 'release-1.2') that illustrate expected formats. It does not add semantics for project_path beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read a text file from the repository') and immediately bounds the scope with 'truncated to 500 lines'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the listing sibling, so an agent can tell it apart from gitlab_list_repository_tree without inspecting either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use examples mapping natural-language requests to parameter values, and an explicit when-not-to-use rule ('Don't use for listings — use gitlab_list_repository_tree'). The binary-file caveat further narrows the appropriate use case.

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