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

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_epic_widgets

Read-only

Retrieve epic widgets including health status, progress, milestone, iteration, and linked items by providing group ID and epic IID.

Instructions

Get Work Item widgets for an epic: health status, progress, milestone, iteration, and linked items.

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_widgets"
  }
}

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_iidYesEpic IID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds that multiple widget types are returned, but lacks details on behavior for missing epics, empty results, or data format. 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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the types of widgets included. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 exists, but the description lists widget types, providing context. However, it does not explain the return structure (e.g., flat list or dictionary) or what each widget contains. This is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 detailed descriptions for both parameters (especially group_id hint). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves 'widgets' for an epic, listing specific types: health status, progress, milestone, iteration, and linked items. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_epic' (epic details) and 'list_epic_issues' (issues only).

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?

The description implies usage for getting a dashboard view of an epic's widgets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get_epic' or 'list_epic_issues'. No exclusions or context triggers are provided.

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