gitlab-ci-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gitlab_project_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve essential GitLab project metadata—ID, default branch, visibility, and counts—to identify a repository or check its access level.

Instructions

Return basic metadata about a project: ID, default branch, visibility, counts.

Examples: - "What's the project ID and default branch" → default call - "Is this repo public or private" → look at visibility

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_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_project_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`web_url`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`star_count`	Yes
`visibility`	Yes
`forks_count`	Yes
`default_branch`	Yes
`last_activity_at`	Yes
`open_issues_count`	Yes
`path_with_namespace`	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"
```
addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "project_path"
+]
```

First observedv0.5.1Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, but says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent or inaccessible project, permission requirements, or what 'counts' actually contains.

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?

One summary sentence up front followed by two short mapping examples; nothing is padded. The literal escaped backticks and quote marks around 'visibility' are minor formatting noise rather than wasted content.

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?

For a single-parameter read with an output schema, the description covers what the user can get and when to reach for it. The only soft spot is the unexplained 'counts' term, which the output schema presumably resolves.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single project_path parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, including the legacy GITLAB_ALLOW_DEFAULT_PROJECT fallback. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Return basic metadata about a project') and enumerates the returned fields (ID, default branch, visibility, counts). This distinguishes it in practice from the pipeline/branch/MR/file siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The two examples map real user questions to the correct call ('What's the project ID and default branch' → default call; 'Is this repo public or private' → visibility), giving clear usage context. There are no when-not conditions or pointers to alternative siblings.

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