gitlab_get_issuesRetrieves GitLab issues with filters for project, group, state, labels, assignee, milestone, and pagination to support issue review and management.
Get list of issues. Can filter by project_id.
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name—it does not mention pagination behavior, return shape, rate limits, or how filtering affects results.
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 description is two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though that terseness contributes to the missing parameter and usage detail.
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, no output schema, and multiple related sibling tools, the description is far too sparse. It should explain filtering scope (project vs group), pagination, and when to prefer this over single-issue or group-issue tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate but only mentions project_id filtering. It leaves state, title, labels, group_id, issue_iid, pagination parameters (page, per_page, max_pages), and others completely unexplained.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get list of issues'), making the basic action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like gitlab_get_issue (single issue) or gitlab_get_group_issues (group-scoped listing), and it omits that group_id filtering is supported.
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 tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_issue or gitlab_get_group_issues. The only contextual hint is 'Can filter by project_id,' which does not explain selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.