Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_epic

Read-only

Retrieve complete details of a GitLab epic using its group ID and epic IID.

Instructions

Obtenir les details complets d'un epic par son numero (IID).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "epic_iid": "<epic_iid>"
    },
    "name": "get_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesID ou chemin URL du groupe GitLab (ex: '42' ou 'wanadev/kp1'). Si vous n'avez que le nom, appelez d'abord list_groups pour trouver le chemin exact.
epic_iidYesNumero de l'epic (IID affiche dans GitLab)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond 'get complete details'. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, and description only says 'details complets' which is vague. Lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or the structure of the returned object.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Obtenir les details complets') and the resource ('un epic par son numero (IID)'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_epics (list) and update_epic (mutation).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implicitly indicates when to use: when you have an epic IID and need full details. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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