Retrieve details and status of a GitLab merge request using its project ID and IID to check review progress, approvals, and merge readiness.
Get details and status of a merge request by IID (!)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically. | |
| merge_request_iid | Yes | The project-scoped merge request number (e.g. 5 for !5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'Get' and mentions 'details and status', but discloses nothing about return shape, pagination, permission requirements, or error behavior for a missing IID.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though minimally informative as a result.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter lookup with 100% schema coverage this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the agent guessing about what 'details and status' actually returns. Small gap for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description restates the IID concept and adds the '!<iid>' notation hint, which marginally reinforces the schema's own example but adds no new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get details and status of a merge request') and scopes it as a single-item lookup by IID. This distinguishes it implicitly from list_merge_requests and the many mutation siblings like update_merge_request or accept_merge_request, though it does not name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the 'by IID' phrasing (retrieve one specific MR), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as list_merge_requests for browsing or get_merge_request_changes for the diff. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.