Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

health_check

Read-only

Verify server status and authentication. Always reports the MCP server version (mcp_server_version). When authenticated, also reports the GitLab instance version from GET /api/v4/version (version, revision, enterprise).

Instructions

Verify server status and authentication. Always reports the MCP server version (mcp_server_version). When authenticated, also reports the GitLab instance version from GET /api/v4/version (version, revision, enterprise). Version lookup failures do not fail the health check — those fields are omitted. Use this to verify server connectivity and authentication before making GitLab requests; use whoami when the authenticated user's identity is the goal. A 403 from GET /user with an insufficient_scope error means the token is accepted but User API scope is missing (read_user or fine-grained User:Read); the check stays ok, sets user_api_warning, and omits version metadata. Rate-limit and authentication-ban 403 responses stay unauthenticated. It does not mutate GitLab state and returns server/authentication status plus GitLab version details when available. Connection failures with no HTTP response return status error, authenticated false, and an error object (kind tls, dns, timeout, or network, plus code and message) instead of a protocol error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.

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. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses that version lookup failures are non-fatal and omit fields, that a 403 insufficient_scope sets user_api_warning and stays ok, that rate-limit/ban 403s stay unauthenticated, and that transport failures return status error plus a typed error object (tls/dns/timeout/network). This is unusually rich failure-mode disclosure for a read-only probe.

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?

Purpose and the sibling alternative are front-loaded, and the dense error-code catalog is high-value rather than filler. It is nonetheless long for a health probe and the final sentence partially restates the opening ('returns server/authentication status'), leaving mild trimming headroom.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly — version fields, conditional omission, warning flags, and per-kind error objects. An agent has everything needed to interpret any outcome correctly.

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 single `jmespath` parameter has full schema description coverage and is a generic post-filter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or examples, which is the baseline 3 when schema coverage is 100%.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Verify server status and authentication') and immediately names the alternative sibling (`whoami`) with the condition that selects it. An agent can distinguish it from the identity-oriented sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('verify server connectivity and authentication before making GitLab requests') plus an explicit when-not/alternative ('use `whoami` when the authenticated user's identity is the goal'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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