GitLab MCP Server

team_merge_requests

List merge requests across projects filtered by a team label, with optional state and project path filters.

Instructions

List merge requests with a specific team label across all projects or a specific project.

Args: label: Team label to filter by (defaults to 'RE') state: Filter by state: 'opened', 'closed', 'merged', or 'all' project_path: Optional - filter to a specific project (e.g., 'group/project') 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": "team_merge_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`label`	No	RE
`state`	No	opened
`per_page`	No
`project_path`	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

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It describes a read-only list operation and explains parameters, but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the per_page parameter.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear argument list. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 4 optional parameters and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality. It lacks details on pagination behavior or how results are ordered, but remains sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: label (default RE), state (opened, closed, merged, all), project_path (e.g., group/project), per_page (max 100). It adds meaning beyond the schema's default values.

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 merge requests with a specific team label across all projects or a specific project', specifying the verb (list), resource (merge requests), and the unique filtering by team label. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_merge_requests' which lists all merge requests.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use: when needing merge requests filtered by team label. It provides context by mentioning optional project_path and state filters, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use.

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