Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

health_check

Read-only

Confirm server connectivity and authentication status before GitLab API calls, returning GitLab version details when accessible.

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. It does not mutate GitLab state and returns server/authentication status plus GitLab version details when available.

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it does not mutate GitLab state, version lookup failures do not fail the health check, and the returned fields differ based on authentication status. It also specifies the source endpoint and the exact fields reported. This is strong transparency for an agent.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, immediately followed by return-value details, failure behavior, usage guidance, and an explicit alternative. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no filler or vague boilerplate.

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?

For a simple health-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is always returned, what is returned only when authenticated, and how failures are handled. It also covers non-mutation and when to use whoami, making the tool complete from an agent's perspective.

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 schema already documents the single jmespath parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain it in depth. The description adds no new semantic detail about jmespath itself, but the baseline schema coverage is sufficient. A score 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 states a specific verb and resource: verifying server status and authentication, plus reporting GitLab version details when authenticated. It clearly distinguishes itself from whoami, noting that whoami is the tool to use when the authenticated user's identity is the goal. The purpose is unambiguous and easy for an agent to act on.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to verify server connectivity and authentication before making GitLab requests, and names whoami as the alternative when user identity is the goal. This gives the agent clear selection criteria and exclusions, which is exactly what usage guidance should provide.

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