Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

validate_project_ci_lint

Read-only

Validate an existing .gitlab-ci.yml without applying it. This read-only lint flags invalid configuration, so you know the CI file is safe to create or update.

Instructions

Validate an existing .gitlab-ci.yml configuration for a project. Use this to check configuration without applying it; choose a create or update tool only after validation succeeds. 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
dry_runNoRun pipeline creation simulation
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
content_refNoCommit SHA, branch, or tag to read the existing CI config from
dry_run_refNoBranch or tag context for dry_run validation
include_jobsNoInclude jobs in the lint response

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. Addedv2.1.45
  3. Removedv2.1.43
  4. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces that it is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary usage guidance and behavioral notes without excessive verbosity. The sentence about identifiers and pagination is slightly generic but still earns its place.

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-only validation tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring safety, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and what errors to expect. It does not describe the return format, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is straightforward validation, so this is a minor gap.

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 all six parameters. The description adds general guidance about providing numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths and using required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented, but it does not add specific meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 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 ('Validate') and resource ('.gitlab-ci.yml configuration for a project'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'validate_ci_lint' by specifying it operates on an existing project configuration. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 says to use this tool to check configuration without applying it, and to choose a create or update tool only after validation succeeds. It also provides guidance on identifiers and pagination fields, giving clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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