Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP-gitlab

MCP-gitlab

by sumirati
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get Project Details

get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve GitLab project metadata—default branch, visibility, topics, and repository statistics—to inspect settings or verify access. Use it before fetching files.

Instructions

Retrieve comprehensive metadata for a specific GitLab project, including default branch, repository statistics, visibility, and topic tags. Use to inspect repository settings or verify project access. Do NOT use to inspect directory trees or source code; use 'get_file_contents' instead.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatYesOutput format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'markdown
project_idYesProject numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically.
statisticsYesInclude project repository and storage statistics

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "markdown",
+  "description": "Output format: 'markdown' (default) or 'json'",
+  "enum": [
+    "json",
+    "markdown"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "project_id",
-  "statistics"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "statistics",
+  "format"
+]
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication scope, rate limits, or behavior on a missing/inaccessible project. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first states scope and payload, the second routes usage and the exclusion. Everything is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the metadata returned (default branch, statistics, visibility, topics). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so project_id, statistics, and format are all documented in the schema itself, including the ID/path format and the enum default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (GitLab project metadata), then enumerates the concrete payload (default branch, repository statistics, visibility, topic tags). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_file_contents and get_commit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives when to use ('inspect repository settings or verify project access') and when not to use ('Do NOT use to inspect directory trees or source code'), naming the alternative tool 'get_file_contents'. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools