GitLab MCP Server

list_pipelines

Retrieve pipelines from a GitLab project, filtered by status, branch, or tag. Use to monitor CI/CD workflow status.

Instructions

List pipelines in a GitLab project.

Args: project_path: Full path of the project (e.g., 'group/project') status: Filter by status: 'running', 'pending', 'success', 'failed', 'canceled', 'skipped' ref: Filter by branch or tag name 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_pipelines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`status`	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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List pipelines' and parameter info, omitting details like pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the list includes all statuses by default.

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: one sentence for purpose and a bullet-like list for parameters. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with main action.

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?

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks details on pagination beyond per_page, such as how to iterate pages or default ordering. Adequate for a simple list but incomplete for robust agent usage.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema for all parameters: project_path with example, status with enumerated values, ref as branch/tag filter, per_page with max. This compensates for 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'List pipelines in a GitLab project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on issues, merge requests, repository tree, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pipeline_jobs. The use case is implied by naming, but no exclusions or context are provided.

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