Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_commit

Read-only

Retrieve details of a specific commit from a GitLab project by providing its SHA or branch/tag name. Optionally include commit stats to analyze changes.

Instructions

Get details of a specific commit. Use this for a known resource or result; choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources. It is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data; missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. When project_id or group_id is accepted, provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema; use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shaYesThe commit hash or name of a repository branch or tag
statsNoInclude commit stats
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.62
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "sha",
-  "project_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "sha"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.45
  4. Removedv2.1.43
  5. Addedv2.1.18
  6. Removedv2.1.14
  7. Addedv2.1.11
  8. Removedv2.1.10
  9. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "sha"
-]New value: +[
+  "sha",
+  "project_id"
+]
  10. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces non-mutating behavior while adding useful error conditions: missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence is concise and front-loaded, and the second provides useful routing. However, the final sentence includes generic boilerplate about group_id and pagination fields that do not apply to this tool's schema, adding noise. The description is adequate but not tightly scoped to this specific tool.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the core need: what it does, when to use it, important error behaviors, and identifier requirements. The only minor gap is lack of any hint about the return value shape, but this is not necessary for such a straightforward get-by-id tool.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only a slight reinforcement of the project_id identifier format and a generic instruction to use identifiers/pagination as documented. It does not meaningfully explain sha, stats, or jmespath beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 begins with a precise verb and object: 'Get details of a specific commit.' It also explicitly scopes the tool to known resources/individual results and contrasts it with list or search tools for discovery, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_commits.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('for a known resource or result') and when not to ('choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources'). It also provides concrete guidance on identifier formats, which helps the agent choose and populate the correct call.

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