Skip to main content
Glama

server_info

Retrieve GitLab MCP server information and connection status to verify API accessibility and server health for managing GitLab instances.

Instructions

取得 GitLab MCP 服務器資訊和連線狀態

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The `server_info` tool implementation, which retrieves GitLab server information and connection status. It is registered using the `@mcp.tool()` decorator.
    @mcp.tool()
    def server_info() -> str:
        """取得 GitLab MCP 服務器資訊和連線狀態"""
        config = get_config()
        try:
            client = get_client()
            version_info = client.get_server_version()
            gitlab_version = version_info.get("version", "未知")
            return f"""GitLab MCP 服務器已啟動
    - GitLab 位址: {config.gitlab_url}
    - GitLab 版本: {gitlab_version}
    - API 逾時: {config.timeout}秒
    - 日誌級別: {config.log_level}"""
        except GitLabAPIError as e:
            return f"""GitLab MCP 服務器已啟動(無法取得版本資訊)
    - GitLab 位址: {config.gitlab_url}
    - 連線錯誤: {str(e)}"""
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information and connection status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: '取得 GitLab MCP 服務器資訊和連線狀態'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-less tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output specifics. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still cover more about when and how to use the tool effectively. This results in a score of 3, indicating a basic but incomplete description.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 tool's purpose: '取得 GitLab MCP 服務器資訊和連線狀態' (Get GitLab MCP server information and connection status). It specifies the verb ('取得' - get) and resource ('GitLab MCP 服務器資訊和連線狀態'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'health_check' tool, which might serve a similar purpose. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'health_check'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool 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/snowild/gitlab-mcp'

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