Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_get_user_reported_issues

Retrieve all issues originally reported by a specific GitLab user to track reporting patterns, monitor resolution progress, and analyze user feedback across projects.

Instructions

List all issues created/reported by a specific user (including closed ones).

Shows issues where the user is the original reporter/creator. Use this tool to see what problems or requests a user has reported.

Examples:

  • Bug reporting patterns: get_user_reported_issues(user_id=123)

  • User feedback analysis

  • Historical issue creation

Find all issues originally created by the specified user across all accessible projects, with current status and resolution tracking.

For issues currently assigned to a user, use 'gitlab_get_user_open_issues' instead.

Returns reported issues with:

  • Issue details: title, description, current state

  • Progress tracking: assignees, resolution status

  • Timeline: creation, updates, resolution dates

  • Engagement: comments, watchers, related issues

  • Project context: where issue was reported

Use cases:

  • Track personal issue reporting patterns

  • Follow up on submitted problems

  • Monitor issue resolution progress

  • Generate user engagement reports

Parameters:

  • user_id: Numeric user ID

  • username: Username string (use either user_id or username)

  • state: Filter by state (opened, closed, all)

  • since: Issues created after date (YYYY-MM-DD)

  • until: Issues created before date (YYYY-MM-DD)

  • sort: Sort order (created, updated, closed)

  • per_page: Results per page (default: 20)

  • page: Page number (default: 1)

Example: Get recently reported issues

{
  "username": "johndoe",
  "state": "opened",
  "since": "2024-01-01",
  "sort": "created"
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idNoNumeric user ID
usernameNoUsername string
stateNoFilter by stateopened
sinceNoIssues created after date (YYYY-MM-DD)
untilNoIssues created before date (YYYY-MM-DD)
sortNoSort ordercreated
per_pageNoNumber of results per page Type: integer Range: 1-100 Default: 20 Example: 50 (for faster browsing) Tip: Use smaller values (10-20) for detailed operations, larger (50-100) for listing
pageNoPage number for pagination Type: integer Range: ≥1 Default: 1 Example: 3 (to get the third page of results) Note: Use with per_page to navigate large result sets

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the tool logic. Parses arguments and calls the GitLabClient's get_user_reported_issues method to fetch issues reported by the user.
    def handle_get_user_reported_issues(client: GitLabClient, arguments: Optional[Dict[str, Any]]) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Handle getting user's reported issues"""
        user_id = get_argument(arguments, "user_id")
        username = get_argument(arguments, "username")
        state = get_argument(arguments, "state", "opened")
        since = get_argument(arguments, "since")
        until = get_argument(arguments, "until")
        sort = get_argument(arguments, "sort", "created")
        per_page = get_argument(arguments, "per_page", DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE)
        page = get_argument(arguments, "page", 1)
        
        return client.get_user_reported_issues(
            user_id=user_id,
            username=username,
            state=state,
            since=since,
            until=until,
            sort=sort,
            per_page=per_page,
            page=page
        )
  • The TOOL_HANDLERS dictionary entry that registers the handler function for the tool name TOOL_GET_USER_REPORTED_ISSUES, used by the server to dispatch tool calls.
        TOOL_GET_USER_REPORTED_ISSUES: handle_get_user_reported_issues,
        TOOL_GET_USER_RESOLVED_ISSUES: handle_get_user_resolved_issues,
        
        # User's Code & Commits handlers  
        TOOL_GET_USER_COMMITS: handle_get_user_commits,
        TOOL_GET_USER_MERGE_COMMITS: handle_get_user_merge_commits,
        TOOL_GET_USER_CODE_CHANGES_SUMMARY: handle_get_user_code_changes_summary,
        TOOL_GET_USER_SNIPPETS: handle_get_user_snippets,
        
        # User's Comments & Discussions handlers
        TOOL_GET_USER_ISSUE_COMMENTS: handle_get_user_issue_comments,
        TOOL_GET_USER_MR_COMMENTS: handle_get_user_mr_comments,
        TOOL_GET_USER_DISCUSSION_THREADS: handle_get_user_discussion_threads,
        TOOL_GET_USER_RESOLVED_THREADS: handle_get_user_resolved_threads,
    }
  • The tool schema definition including input validation schema and description reference.
    name=TOOL_GET_USER_REPORTED_ISSUES,
    description=desc.DESC_GET_USER_REPORTED_ISSUES,
    inputSchema={
        "type": "object",
        "properties": {
            "username": {"type": "string", "description": "Username string"},
            "state": {"type": "string", "description": "Issue state", "enum": ["opened", "closed", "all"], "default": "opened"},
            "since": {"type": "string", "description": "Issues created after date (YYYY-MM-DD)"},
            "per_page": {"type": "integer", "description": desc.DESC_PER_PAGE, "default": DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE, "minimum": 1, "maximum": MAX_PAGE_SIZE},
            "page": {"type": "integer", "description": desc.DESC_PAGE_NUMBER, "default": 1, "minimum": 1}
        },
        "required": ["username"]
    }
  • Explicit tool registration in server.list_tools() method, defining the tool schema for MCP protocol.
        name=TOOL_GET_USER_REPORTED_ISSUES,
        description=desc.DESC_GET_USER_REPORTED_ISSUES,
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "user_id": {"type": "string", "description": "Numeric user ID"},
                "username": {"type": "string", "description": "Username string"},
                "state": {"type": "string", "description": "Filter by state", "enum": ["opened", "closed", "all"], "default": "opened"},
                "since": {"type": "string", "description": "Issues created after date (YYYY-MM-DD)"},
                "until": {"type": "string", "description": "Issues created before date (YYYY-MM-DD)"},
                "sort": {"type": "string", "description": "Sort order", "enum": ["created", "updated", "closed"], "default": "created"},
                "per_page": {"type": "integer", "description": desc.DESC_PER_PAGE, "default": DEFAULT_PAGE_SIZE, "minimum": 1, "maximum": MAX_PAGE_SIZE},
                "page": {"type": "integer", "description": desc.DESC_PAGE_NUMBER, "default": 1, "minimum": 1}
            }
        }
    ),
  • Constant defining the exact tool name string used throughout the codebase.
    TOOL_GET_USER_REPORTED_ISSUES = "gitlab_get_user_reported_issues"
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format in detail ('Returns reported issues with: - Issue details...'), which is helpful, but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description does not contradict annotations, but it could be more comprehensive for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose but becomes verbose with repetitive sections like 'Use cases' and 'Parameters' that largely restate information. Sentences like 'Track personal issue reporting patterns' are somewhat redundant. While structured, it could be more streamlined by eliminating overlap and focusing on unique value-add.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job of covering purpose, usage, and return details. It explains what the tool returns in a structured way, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, it could improve by addressing potential behavioral aspects like pagination handling or error scenarios more explicitly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists all parameters and provides an example, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., it repeats parameter names without extra context like validation rules or interdependencies). The example helps illustrate usage but doesn't enhance semantic understanding substantially.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List all issues created/reported by a specific user') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'gitlab_get_user_open_issues' as an alternative for assigned issues. It specifies the scope ('including closed ones', 'across all accessible projects') and clarifies the user's role ('original reporter/creator').

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, stating 'For issues currently assigned to a user, use 'gitlab_get_user_open_issues' instead.' It also includes use cases and examples that help the agent understand appropriate contexts, such as 'Bug reporting patterns' and 'User feedback analysis,' making the usage boundaries clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Vijay-Duke/mcp-gitlab'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server