gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

get_project

Get detailed information on a GitLab project by providing its project ID or path.

Instructions

프로젝트 상세 조회

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`project_id`	Yes	프로젝트 ID 또는 경로

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'View project details' without mentioning authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if project not found), or any side effects. For a read operation, transparency is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits potentially useful details (e.g., output format). For conciseness, it scores well, but structure could be improved by front-loading a more informative verb phrase.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally explain what is returned (e.g., full project details). It lacks that. Still, for a simple retrieval tool with well-defined parameters and no complex nesting, the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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%, with all parameters explained in the schema (instance optional, project_id required with 'ID or path'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond these schema definitions, 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 '프로젝트 상세 조회' clearly means 'View project details', a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (list vs detail) and get_group (different resource). The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it's implied for retrieving a single project, the description does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for listing all projects) or provide context like expected project_id format. The absence of explicit usage guidance reduces utility.

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