GitLab MCP Server

list_repository_tree

Display the files and directories in a GitLab repository. Specify a project path, optional subpath, branch, and recursion to browse repository contents.

Instructions

List files and directories in a repository.

Args: project_path: Full path of the project (e.g., 'group/project') path: Path inside the repository to list (empty for root) ref: Branch name, tag, or commit SHA (defaults to 'main') recursive: If true, list files recursively 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_repository_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ref`	No	main
`path`	No
`per_page`	No
`recursive`	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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, error handling, symlink handling, or whether the listing is limited to certain file types. The description is minimal on behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is reasonably concise with a clear first sentence and a structured parameter list. It could be slightly shortened by removing redundant defaults (e.g., ref default is already in schema), but overall it is well-organized and front-loaded with the main action.

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 output schema exists (no need to explain returns), and the description covers all parameters, it is fairly complete for a listing tool. However, it lacks details on pagination, error handling, and limits, which would improve completeness for agent decision-making.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args block fully explains each parameter: project_path as full path, path being empty for root, ref as branch/tag/commit with default 'main', recursive boolean, and per_page with max 100. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 files and directories in a repository', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_content (single file) and list_issues (issues), making it easy to understand its purpose.

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. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or hints about when it is appropriate to list the repository tree vs getting file content or listing other resources.

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