Retrieve details for a specific GitLab project member by user ID or username. Use it to look up roles and account info for access checks.
Get details for a specific project member by user ID or username
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User numeric ID or username | |
| project_id | Yes | Project numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get' but discloses nothing about required permissions, behavior when the user is not a member, or what the response contains.
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 no filler; the resource and lookup key come first. Efficient, though it leaves behavioral detail entirely unaddressed.
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 two-parameter read lookup with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits error/permission behavior, but the core operation is clear enough to invoke correctly.
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 project_id and user_id are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the user_id lookup options ('by user ID or username') without adding new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific project member'), clearly distinguishing it from the plural sibling list_project_members. It does not explicitly name any sibling, which keeps it 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_project_members or get_current_user, nor any stated prerequisites. The singular 'a specific project member' only implicitly signals single-record lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.