CERN GitLab MCP Server

list_project_files

Read-only

List files and directories in a CERN GitLab project's repository, with recursive and path-specific options for exploring code and docs.

Instructions

List files and directories in a CERN GitLab project's repository. Supports recursive listing and path specific lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	Branch name, tag, or commit SHA (default: project's default branch)
`path`	No	Directory path within the repository (default: root '/')
`project`	Yes	Project identifier — either a numeric ID (e.g. '12345') or a URL-encoded path (e.g. 'atlas/athena')
`per_page`	No	Number of entries to return
`recursive`	No	If true, list files recursively

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed13 schema fields changedv0.3.0Aug 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / path / default
```
Added value: +""
```
- addedInput schema / properties / path / title
```
Added value: +"Path"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Added value: +100
```
- changedInput schema / properties / per_page / description
```
Previous value: -"Number of entries to return (default: 100, max: 100)"New value: +"Number of entries to return"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / per_page / title
```
Added value: +"Per Page"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / project / title
```
Added value: +"Project"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / recursive / default
```
Added value: +false
```
- changedInput schema / properties / recursive / description
```
Previous value: -"If true, list files recursively (default: false)"New value: +"If true, list files recursively"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / recursive / title
```
Added value: +"Recursive"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ref / default
```
Added value: +""
```
- addedInput schema / properties / ref / title
```
Added value: +"Ref"
```
- addedInput schema / title
```
Added value: +"list_project_files_fnArguments"
```
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "list_project_files_fnDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.6Mar 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and presents the operation as a pure read action. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond what the schema already exposes, such as pagination behavior, default branch fallback, or return limitations. The annotation lowers the burden, so this meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the action and target, and the second highlights the two most useful capabilities. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool title, and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With full schema coverage, a readOnlyHint, and an output schema present, the description together with structured data is sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It could be improved by explicitly noting that file contents are not returned here, but that distinction is inferable from the sibling tool set.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of 'recursive listing and path specific lookups' restates what the schema says rather than adding new meaning, such as how project IDs are formatted or how recursive and path interact.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('files and directories in a CERN GitLab project's repository'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_file_content or list_branches, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file_content, inspect_project, or list_branches. It mentions recursive listing and path-specific lookups, but it does not give routing cues, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

Deploy Server