gitlab-api

Get runner jobs

gitlab_get_runner_jobs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve jobs for a specific GitLab runner by runner ID to inspect workload and job statuses.

Instructions

Get jobs for a specific runner.

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

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

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the runner_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_runner_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`info`	No
`token`	No
`active`	No
`locked`	No
`paused`	No
`status`	No
`group_id`	No
`tag_list`	No
`max_pages`	No
`runner_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`all_runners`	No
`description`	No
`runner_type`	No
`access_level`	No
`run_untagged`	No
`maximum_timeout`	No
`maintenance_note`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / all_runners / default
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +null
```

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

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

addedInput schema / properties / max_pages

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return information (a wrapper with Job models) and error behavior, but it omits pagination behavior despite a max_pages parameter and gives no permissions context. The '**kwargs' phrasing also conflicts with the fixed, closed input schema, though not with the annotations.

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 description is short and uses a conventional Args/Returns/Raises structure. However, the Args section is boilerplate and misleading because it describes '**kwargs' while the schema defines a fixed set of properties, so that portion does not earn its place.

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?

For a 19-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition is substantially incomplete. It covers the return wrapper and some errors, but it does not explain parameter meanings, filtering behavior, pagination, or how to choose this tool over similar job-listing tools.

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% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It only mentions runner_id as an example and refers generically to 'additional parameters,' leaving the other 18 parameters without meaning or usage guidance.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get jobs for a specific runner.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project_jobs, gitlab_get_pipeline_jobs, or gitlab_get_runners.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any alternatives named. The only usage-related detail is an error condition when runner_id is missing, which implies a requirement without explaining the selection context.

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

Deploy Server