Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_get_webhook

Retrieve detailed information about a specific webhook within a GitLab project by providing the project ID and webhook ID. Simplify webhook management and tracking.

Instructions

Get details of a specific webhook

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe ID or URL-encoded path of the project
webhook_idYesThe ID of the webhook

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the gitlab_get_webhook tool logic by fetching the webhook details via integrationsManager and formatting the response.
     * Get webhook handler
     */
    export const getWebhook: ToolHandler = async (params, context) => {
      const { project_id, webhook_id } = params.arguments || {};
      if (!project_id || !webhook_id) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, 'project_id and webhook_id are required');
      }
      
      const data = await context.integrationsManager.getWebhook(project_id as string | number, webhook_id as number);
      return formatResponse(data);
    };
  • The input schema definition specifying parameters for the gitlab_get_webhook tool.
    {
      name: 'gitlab_get_webhook',
      description: 'Get details of a specific webhook',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID or URL-encoded path of the project'
          },
          webhook_id: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'The ID of the webhook'
          }
        },
        required: ['project_id', 'webhook_id']
      }
    },
  • Maps the tool name 'gitlab_get_webhook' to its handler function in the central tool registry.
    gitlab_get_webhook: integrationHandlers.getWebhook,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON with webhook properties). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, output format) and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in a real-world scenario.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('of a specific webhook'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_webhooks' or 'gitlab_get_webhook' (if there were duplicates), which would require mentioning it retrieves a single webhook by ID rather than listing multiple.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention using 'gitlab_list_webhooks' to find webhook IDs first or 'gitlab_update_webhook' for modifications, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rifqi96/mcp-gitlab'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server