gitlab_get_epicsRetrieve all epics for a specified GitLab group. Use group_id to fetch epics, with optional filters like title, description, and state_event.
Get all epics for a group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| epic_iid | No | ||
| group_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| state_event | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v27.3.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the group scoping phrase and says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering — the traits an agent most needs for a list operation remain undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the schema complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no notes on filtering or return shape, the description is not sufficient for an agent to call this correctly. The group scope is the only hint provided against a much larger undocumented surface.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only loosely implies group_id via 'for a group'. Odd parameters like data, title, epic_iid, description, and state_event on a 'get' tool are unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get all epics') constrained to a group scope, which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular gitlab_get_epic sibling. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly call out the sibling or clarify what 'all' covers (pagination/limits).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus gitlab_get_epic, gitlab_get_group_issues, or other listing tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer selection entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.