Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fork_repository

Fork a GitLab project to your account or a specified namespace. Create a new project copy with the required permissions for independent work.

Instructions

Fork a project to your account or specified namespace. Use this to create a copy of an existing project in the current user's namespace or a permitted namespace; use search_repositories or get_project to inspect projects without copying them. The operation creates a new project, requires fork permission, and returns the forked project or a namespace/permission error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
namespaceNoNamespace to fork to (full path)
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.1.45
  3. Removedv2.1.43
  4. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id"
+]
  9. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only include `openWorldHint`, so the description carries most behavioral disclosure. It discloses the side effect (creates a new project), a permission prerequisite (fork permission), and the possible return/error outcomes (forked project or namespace/permission error). It does not explicitly say the original project is untouched, but 'copy' implies this and the key behavioral facts are present.

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?

Three sentences, no filler; the core action and destination are front-loaded, followed by alternatives and behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a tool with only one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation, destination, permission requirement, and likely error cases. It could add more on idempotency or output details, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that `namespace` defaults to the current user's namespace and must be permitted, and that `project_id` refers to an existing project to be copied. This goes beyond the raw schema entries.

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 states a specific action ('fork a project'), the resource ('existing project'), and the destination ('your account or specified namespace'). It also names the siblings it is not (`search_repositories`, `get_project`) for inspection without copying, so an agent can disambiguate.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use this to create a copy...') and names alternative tools for inspection (`search_repositories` or `get_project`). This directly tells an agent how to choose this tool over related siblings.

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