Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_forks

Retrieve all forks of a GitLab project by providing the project ID. Access fork details for project management.

Instructions

List forks of a project.

Args:
    project_id: GitLab project ID
    token: GitLab Personal Access Token (optional)
    ctx: MCP context (automatically injected)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
tokenNo
ctxNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_project_forks' tool. Calls GitLab API /projects/{project_id}/forks and lists up to 10 forks with name, namespace, and ID.
    async def get_project_forks(project_id: int, token: str = None, ctx=None) -> str:
        """List forks of a project.
        
        Args:
            project_id: GitLab project ID
            token: GitLab Personal Access Token (optional)
            ctx: MCP context (automatically injected)
        """
        data = await make_gitlab_request(f"/projects/{project_id}/forks", ctx=ctx, token=token)
        
        if isinstance(data, dict) and "error" in data:
            return f"Error: {data['error']}"
        
        if not data:
            return "No forks found."
        
        forks = []
        for fork in data[:10]:
            forks.append(f"• {fork['name']} by {fork['namespace']['name']} - ID: {fork['id']}")
        
        return "\n".join(forks)
  • Registration of 'get_project_forks' as an MCP tool via the @mcp.tool() decorator on line 1225.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def get_project_forks(project_id: int, token: str = None, ctx=None) -> str:
        """List forks of a project.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists forks, implying a read operation, but omits pagination behavior, rate limiting, authentication details (token is optional but not explained), and any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and mostly front-loaded, but it lacks a structured format (e.g., Returns section, example). While brevity can be a virtue, the lack of structure reduces clarity for an agent parsing multiple tools.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description fails to address common list-tool behaviors like pagination, sorting, or filtering. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, this gap leaves the agent underinformed.

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 compensate. It adds minor value by noting token is optional and ctx is auto-injected, but for project_id it only repeats 'GitLab project ID' without adding format or constraints. More detail on parameters is needed.

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 ('List forks') and the resource ('a project'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'fork_project' (which creates a fork). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 other list-related tools (e.g., get_project_branches, list_projects). There is no mention of context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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

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/skmprb/gitlab-clone-mcp-server'

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