gitlab-api

Get project members

gitlab_get_project_members

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve members of a specific GitLab project using project_id, with pagination controls to review access and membership data.

Instructions

Get members of a specific project.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_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_project_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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return shape and error conditions, but its MissingParameterError claim for project_id conflicts with the schema's optional project_id, and pagination behavior is not explained.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the Args/Returns/Raises structure is compact. The **kwargs wording is slightly inaccurate for this schema but does not create significant bloat.

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 simple read-only member-listing tool, the annotations plus return and error notes cover much of the needed context. It remains incomplete because pagination and group_id are undocumented, and the project_id requiredness claim conflicts with the schema.

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%, and the description compensates only for project_id. It does not explain group_id, page, or per_page, and the **kwargs phrasing does not match the explicit schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 members of a specific project.' It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling gitlab_get_group_members by its project 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?

The description does not say when to use this tool instead of gitlab_get_group_members or other user/member listing tools. Usage is only implied by the one-line purpose statement.

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

Deploy Server