mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List Repository Tree Tool

list_repository_tree_tool

Read-only

Lists files and directories in a GitLab repository to help you navigate project structure, with options for recursive listing and pagination.

Instructions

List repository tree (files and directories).

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_repository_tree_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	Branch, tag, or commit SHA (default: default branch)
`page`	No	Page number (default: 1)
`path`	No	Path inside the repository (default: root)
`per_page`	No	Results per page, max 100 (default: 20)
`recursive`	No	List files recursively
`project_id`	Yes	Project ID or path

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it lists files and directories, such as pagination behavior, recursion effects, or path scoping.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though thin rather than under-specified for this dimension.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so the agent can technically invoke the tool. Still, the description does not explain key behavioral choices like recursive listing versus scoped paths, leaving context gaps for a 6-parameter listing tool.

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 all six parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable as baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a recognizable verb and resource, "list repository tree," and clarifies that it covers files and directories. However, it largely restates the tool name/title and gives no differentiation from nearby tools such as get_file_tool or list_project_branches_tool.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

Deploy Server