Skip to main content
Glama
ffpy

GitLab MCP Code Review

by ffpy

search_projects

Find GitLab projects by name to locate repositories for code review and analysis through the GitLab MCP Code Review server.

Instructions

Search for GitLab projects by name.

Args:
    project_name: The name of the project to search for. If None, returns all projects.
Returns:
    A list of projects matching the search criteria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_nameNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'search_projects' tool, decorated with @mcp.tool() which registers it in the MCP server. It retrieves GitLab projects matching the given project_name (or all if None) using the GitLab client and returns them as a list of dictionaries.
    @mcp.tool()
    def search_projects(ctx: Context, project_name: str = None) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
        """
        Search for GitLab projects by name.
    
        Args:
            project_name: The name of the project to search for. If None, returns all projects.
        Returns:
            A list of projects matching the search criteria.
        """
        gl = ctx.request_context.lifespan_context
    
        projects = gl.projects.list(search=project_name)
    
        return [p.asdict() for p in projects]
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return type ('A list of projects') but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly verbose for a single parameter. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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?

Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'project_name' is for searching by name and clarifies that 'If None, returns all projects.' This compensates somewhat for the schema gap, though it doesn't detail format or constraints. With one parameter, this meets the baseline expectation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Search for GitLab projects by name,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from sibling tools that also interact with projects (like get_project_merge_requests), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention when this search is appropriate compared to other project-related tools or what contexts it's best suited for, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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/ffpy/gitlab-mcp-code-review'

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