gitlab-api

Get group members

gitlab_get_group_members

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve members of a specific GitLab group by group ID, with optional pagination for listing membership records.

Instructions

Get members of a specific group.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., group_id).

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a list of Membership 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_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`group_id`	No
`per_page`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it states the return shape (a wrapper containing the original response plus Membership models) and the two failure modes (MissingParameterError, ParameterError), which tells the agent group_id is effectively mandatory even though the schema marks nothing required.

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 is front-loaded in one useful sentence, and the Returns/Raises sections earn their space by conveying return type and required-parameter errors. The 'Args: **kwargs ... (e.g., group_id)' block is vague boilerplate that does not match the actual schema and adds little.

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?

For a four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape and error conditions, which is the most important gap. However it leaves pagination behavior and the project_id parameter unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict how to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only mentions group_id (and only indirectly, as an example inside a generic '**kwargs' arg). page, per_page, and especially project_id — which is confusing given the group-scoped purpose — are left entirely unexplained.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get members of a specific group'), which is enough to separate it from mutation siblings and from gitlab_get_project_members. The clarity is slightly undercut because the schema exposes a project_id parameter that the description never reconciles with the 'specific group' scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative gitlab_get_project_members for project-scoped membership. The only selection hint is indirect, via the Raises note that group_id is required.

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

Deploy Server