Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitLab MCP Server

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Project Statistics

get_project_statistics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves aggregate GitLab project statistics—open issues/MRs, stars, forks, storage, commits, last pipeline status, releases, and languages—to assess activity and size.

Instructions

Get aggregate project statistics: open issues/MRs, star/fork counts, storage sizes, commit count, last pipeline status, release count, and language breakdown

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathYesFull path of the project (e.g., "group/project-name")
userCredentialsNoYour GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "accessToken": {
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "gitlabUrl": {
-        "format": "uri",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "accessToken": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "gitlabUrl": {
+        "format": "uri",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / description
      Previous value: -"Your GitLab credentials (optional - uses shared token if not provided)"New value: +"Your GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)"
  3. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the shape of the result (a bundle of aggregate counts plus last pipeline status and language breakdown), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention whether private-project metrics need elevated scopes or that the call fans out across multiple endpoints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a verb, the resource, and a compact enumeration of returned fields. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the field enumeration substitutes effectively for a return-value section, and annotations cover the safety contract. What's missing is minor: expected cost/latency of an aggregation call and whether results are cached or point-in-time.

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% — projectPath is documented with a concrete 'group/project-name' example and userCredentials is documented with the env-token fallback. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (aggregate project statistics) and enumerates the exact metrics returned — open issues/MRs, stars/forks, storage, commits, pipeline status, releases, languages. That enumeration is what separates it from get_project (single-project detail) and the analytics_* siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no reference to any sibling tool. Usage is only implied by the word 'aggregate' and by the count-oriented field list, which suggests a rollup rather than a detail fetch. An agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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