gitlab-api

Get group issues

gitlab_get_group_issues

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a GitLab group's issues, including subgroup issues by default, and filter by state, labels, assignee, milestone, or search to find relevant work items.

Instructions

Get the list of issues for a group (and, by default, its subgroups).

Args: **kwargs: group_id (required) plus optional filters (state, labels, assignee_username, milestone, search, order_by, ...).

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a list of Issue models.

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the group_id is missing. ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided.

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_get_group_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`page`	No
`state`	No
`title`	No
`labels`	No
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`issue_iid`	No
`max_pages`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No
`state_event`	No
`assignee_ids`	No
`milestone_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description's added value is the subgroup-inclusion default, the wrapped response shape, and the two error conditions — all genuine behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations. It does not explain pagination behavior, which matters for a listing endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the rest is a raw docstring with Args/Returns/Raises scaffolding and a trailing ellipsis that signals under-specification rather than brevity. The kwargs phrasing ('... plus optional filters (...)') wastes a line without pinning down valid values.

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?

Return shape and raised errors are documented, which is useful since there is no output schema, and the required group_id is stated. However, for a 14-parameter listing tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves pagination and subgroup opt-out unexplained and misnames several filters, so an agent would still guess at key inputs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only partially does. It names state and labels, which exist, but also lists assignee_username, milestone, search, and order_by, which are not in the schema, while omitting page, per_page, max_pages, data, project_id, issue_iid, and state_event — exactly the pagination and scoping parameters an agent most needs explained.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (list issues for a group) and adds a meaningful scope qualifier: subgroups are included by default. That scope note distinguishes it from a project-scoped issues listing without naming the 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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'group' and the required group_id; nothing says when to prefer this over gitlab_get_issues, gitlab_get_issue, or gitlab_get_group_merge_requests. There are no exclusions or prerequisite guidance beyond the stated MissingParameterError for a missing group_id.

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

Deploy Server