Skip to main content
Glama

get_issue_link

Retrieve a specific issue relationship link from a GitLab project by providing project ID, issue internal ID, and relationship ID.

Instructions

Get a specific issue link

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject ID or URL-encoded path
issue_iidNoThe internal ID of a project's issue
issue_link_idNoID of an issue relationship

Implementation Reference

  • Schema definition for input parameters of the 'get_issue_link' tool, mapping to GitLab API /projects/{project_id}/issues/{issue_iid}/links/{issue_link_id}.
    export const GetIssueLinkSchema = z.object({
      project_id: z.coerce.string().describe("Project ID or URL-encoded path"),
      issue_iid: z.coerce.string().describe("The internal ID of a project's issue"),
      issue_link_id: z.coerce.string().describe("ID of an issue relationship"),
    });
  • Response schema for issue link data returned by the get_issue_link tool.
    export const GitLabIssueLinkSchema = z.object({
      source_issue: GitLabIssueSchema,
      target_issue: GitLabIssueSchema,
      link_type: z.enum(["relates_to", "blocks", "is_blocked_by"]),
    });
  • Related schema for listing issue links (list_issue_links tool). Mentioned in tests.
    export const ListIssueLinksSchema = z.object({
      project_id: z.coerce.string().describe("Project ID or URL-encoded path"),
      issue_iid: z.coerce.string().describe("The internal ID of a project's issue"),
    });
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't confirm this or detail other behaviors like error conditions (e.g., what happens if the link doesn't exist), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. It adds minimal value beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, its brevity leads to under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use. It earns a 4 for being structurally sound but loses points for not providing enough substance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'issue link' is, what data is returned, or how it differs from related tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should compensate by providing more context, but it fails to do so, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full scope.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (project_id, issue_iid, issue_link_id). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between them or usage examples. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get a specific issue link' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_issue_link'. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'issue link', but lacks specificity about what an 'issue link' represents (e.g., a relationship between issues) or what information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_issue' or 'list_issue_links', which handle related but different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_issue' (for general issue details) or 'list_issue_links' (for listing multiple links), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing issue link ID. Without this context, an agent might misuse it or select inappropriate alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zereight/gitlab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server