gitlab_get_issueRetrieve a single GitLab issue by project or group and issue IID to inspect its title, description, state, labels, assignees, and milestone details.
Get a single issue.
| 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 | ||
| api_parameters | 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond this — no mention of authentication needs, error behavior when the issue is absent, or permission scoping across projects/groups.
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?
The single sentence is brief but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy: with 15 undocumented parameters to disambiguate, a five-word description leaves the agent with nothing actionable.
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?
For a tool with 15 parameters, zero schema coverage, no output schema, and a dense set of similarly named siblings, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine the required identifiers, how to disambiguate group vs project scoping, or what the tool returns.
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?
All 15 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It never mentions that project_id, group_id, and issue_iid identify the target, nor explains why write-oriented parameters (title, description, state_event, assignee_ids, labels, milestone_id) and pagination parameters (page, per_page, max_pages) appear on a read tool, which is actively confusing.
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?
The description restates the tool name and title almost verbatim ('Get a single issue'). The only added information is the word 'single', which weakly distinguishes it from the sibling gitlab_get_issues, but no scope, identity requirement, or returned resource is specified beyond what the name already conveys.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus gitlab_get_issues, gitlab_get_project_issues, or gitlab_get_group_issues, and no statement of prerequisites such as needing project_id/group_id plus issue_iid. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.