Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_merge_request

Read-only

Retrieve details of a GitLab merge request by IID or source branch within a project, optionally including deployment, commit, and approval summaries.

Instructions

Get details of a merge request (merge_request_iid or source_branch required). Set include_summaries=true for deployment/commit/approval summaries. To find resources, use the matching list or search tool. Read-only; missing resources, denied access, and rate limits return errors. project_id/group_id take a numeric ID or URL-encoded path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
source_branchNoSource branch name
include_summariesNoIf true, include deployment_summary, commit_addition_summary and approval_summary (extra API calls, larger response). Default false to reduce token usage.
merge_request_iidNoThe IID of a merge request

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 changedv2.1.30
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_summaries
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, include deployment_summary, commit_addition_summary and approval_summary (extra API calls, larger response). Default false to reduce token usage.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "project_id"
+]
  8. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description still adds value by stating the failure modes (missing resources, denied access, rate limits return errors). The include_summaries flag's cost (extra API calls, larger response) is disclosed in the schema, not here, so the description doesn't carry that part.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the required-parameter rule and the summaries flag, with no filler. Minor waste: it mentions `group_id`, which is not a parameter of this tool, which could momentarily confuse the caller.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the required-input rule, the summary-expansion option, discovery alternatives, and error behavior. It does not indicate response shape or pagination, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantics the schema does not encode: the either/or requirement between merge_request_iid and source_branch (schema only marks project_id required), and the accepted ID-or-URL-encoded-path form for project_id.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Get details of a merge request"), which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_merge_request_diffs, get_merge_request_note, and get_merge_request_approval_state. It is clear, though it never explicitly names a sibling to distinguish the MR entity payload from those adjacent read tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete precondition ("merge_request_iid or source_branch required") and a clear opt-in condition for include_summaries ("for deployment/commit/approval summaries"). It also routes discovery cases to list/search tools. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, so not a 5.

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