Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-api

gitlab-api

by Knuckles-Team
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get labels

gitlab_get_labels
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches all labels for a GitLab project, enabling you to review available label names, colors, and descriptions.

Instructions

Get all labels for a project.

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_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
nameNo
colorNo
new_nameNo
project_idNo
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv27.3.13

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them—no pagination behavior, no return ordering, no note that results are scoped to a single project's labels only. With annotations doing the work, the description contributes negligible extra behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. Brevity is appropriate, though it underspecifies rather than being optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no pagination or filtering details, the description is too thin for an agent to call this correctly or interpret results. It should at minimum explain project_id and whether the extra label-attribute parameters act as filters.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Worse, parameters like name, color, new_name, and description look like mutation inputs rather than list filters, and the description doesn't clarify how they apply to a 'get all' operation; only project_id is implied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all labels for a project'), and the word 'all' implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling gitlab_get_label. It doesn't mention filtering, pagination, or scope limits, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus gitlab_get_label (single label), gitlab_get_project, or label-related create/update tools. The only usage signal is the implied 'project context required,' leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools