Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Issues Tool

list_issues_tool
Read-only

Retrieve and filter issues for a GitLab project by state, labels, search terms, assignee, or milestone, with sorting and pagination controls.

Instructions

List issues for a GitLab project.

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_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_issues_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
sortNoSort direction (asc, desc)desc
stateNoFilter by state (opened, closed, all)opened
labelsNoComma-separated label names
searchNoSearch in title and description
order_byNoOrder by field (created_at, updated_at, priority, due_date)created_at
per_pageNoResults per page, max 100 (default: 20)
milestoneNoMilestone title
project_idYesProject ID or path
assignee_idNoFilter by assignee user ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / assignee_id / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description owes added context and delivers none: no pagination behavior, no note that results are filtered by default to 'opened' state, no indication of response size limits. For a 10-parameter listing tool the disclosure is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity here comes at the cost of information rather than being a model of disciplined structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool takes 10 parameters with rich filtering and pagination, yet the description never mentions that filtering, searching, sorting or paging are possible; an agent skimming only the description would miss these capabilities. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the usage-side gaps are substantial.

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 every parameter including state, labels, search, sort and per_page is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which puts it at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('issues') scoped to a GitLab project, which is enough to distinguish it from get_issue_tool, create_issue_tool and update_issue_tool. It offers no explicit comparison to sibling list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_project_tool or list_merge_requests_tool, and no mention of prerequisites like project access. The one sentence is purely descriptive, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools