gitlab-api

Gitlab Discover Graphql Schema

gitlab_discover_graphql_schema

Discover the GitLab GraphQL schema in real time to list available types or inspect fields and custom attributes for a specific type.

Instructions

Discover the dynamic GitLab GraphQL schema including types, fields, and custom attributes in real-time.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_discover_graphql_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type_name`	No	Optional specific GraphQL type name to inspect details for (e.g., 'Project', 'Issue'). If omitted, lists all available types in the schema.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the schema is dynamic and returned in real-time, which is useful behavioral context, but it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor any permission or response-size considerations for a potentially large introspection result.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no padding. 'In real-time' is slightly promotional but reinforces that the schema is dynamic rather than static.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the sole parameter is documented in the schema. The missing piece is the tool's role in the workflow relative to gitlab_graphql — an agent is left to infer that discovery precedes querying.

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%: the single optional parameter type_name is fully documented in the schema with an example and default behavior. The description adds nothing about it, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Discover the dynamic GitLab GraphQL schema' with the scope named (types, fields, custom attributes). This clearly separates it from execution-oriented siblings like gitlab_graphql, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'Discover' plus the absence of query execution implies this is an introspection/schema-lookup tool, but the description never states when to use it versus gitlab_graphql or gitlab_graphql_ops_*, nor any prerequisite (e.g., call this first to build a query). Usage must be inferred.

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

Deploy Server