GitLab MCP Server

list_projects

Retrieve GitLab projects accessible to you. Filter by search term, ownership, or membership status to find specific projects.

Instructions

List GitLab projects accessible to the authenticated user.

Args: search: Search term to filter projects by name owned: If true, only return projects owned by the user membership: If true, only return projects the user is a member of per_page: Number of results per page (max 100)

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": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`owned`	No
`search`	No
`per_page`	No
`membership`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions accessibility ('accessible to the authenticated user') and includes parameter constraints (e.g., 'max 100' for per_page). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or how results are ordered.

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 opening sentence and a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence is informative, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose and parameters adequately, though it could mention that results are paginated or that the search filters by project name.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description provides detailed explanations for all four parameters: search, owned, membership, per_page. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 GitLab projects accessible to the authenticated user.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GitLab projects'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_issues' or 'list_merge_requests' by focusing on projects.

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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling tools. There is no guidance on when not to use it or what scenarios are inappropriate.

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