Retrieve a GitLab pipeline's status, duration, and commit details by project and pipeline ID to track CI/CD execution.
Get detailed status, duration, and commit info for a pipeline
| 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. | |
| pipeline_id | Yes | Numeric ID of the pipeline |
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 burden. 'Get' implies a safe read and it discloses what information is returned, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, error behavior for unknown IDs, or whether the call is idempotent.
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 front-loaded sentence with a specific verb and enumerated return content. It is efficient, though terse enough to leave gaps in usage guidance.
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 read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the call returns. The main shortfall is lack of usage/alternative context, which is minor for such a straightforward lookup.
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%, with project_id accepting numeric ID or namespace path and pipeline_id documented as numeric, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (Get) plus resource (pipeline) and even enumerates the returned fields (status, duration, commit info). It clearly distinguishes a single-pipeline lookup from sibling list_pipelines, though it does not explicitly reference any sibling by name.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_pipelines or get_job. The usage is only implied by the 'get detail for a pipeline' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.