GitLab MCP Server

list_issues

Retrieve a list of GitLab project issues, filtered by state, labels, or search terms.

Instructions

List issues in a GitLab project.

Args: project_path: Full path of the project (e.g., 'group/project') state: Filter by state: 'opened', 'closed', or 'all' labels: Comma-separated list of label names to filter by search: Search term to filter issues per_page: Number of results per page (max 100)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`state`	No	opened
`labels`	No
`search`	No
`per_page`	No
`project_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'List issues' without mentioning pagination behavior, rate limits, sorting, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not referenced.

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 concise with a clear first sentence followed by a well-structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed. The description covers all parameters but misses context like pagination behavior, ordering, and how to retrieve all issues. For a listing tool, these are important gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides all parameter documentation. It explains each parameter (e.g., 'state: Filter by state: opened, closed, or all', 'labels: Comma-separated list'), adding meaning beyond the schema names. However, it lacks explicit constraints on search and does not list all possible values for state.

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 clearly states 'List issues in a GitLab project' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'my_issues' or 'team_issues', which also list issues but with different scopes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_issue' for a single issue or 'my_issues' for user-specific issues. The description lists parameters but does not state explicit prerequisites or exclusions.

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