Skip to main content
Glama
harshmaur

GitLab MCP Server

by harshmaur

list_issue_links

Retrieve all linked issues for a specific GitLab issue to track relationships and dependencies within a project.

Instructions

List all issue links for a specific issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
issue_iidYesThe internal ID of a project's issue

Implementation Reference

  • Input schema (Zod validation) for the 'list_issue_links' tool, defining required parameters: project_id and issue_iid.
    export const ListIssueLinksSchema = z.object({
      project_id: z.string().describe("Project ID or URL-encoded path"),
      issue_iid: z.number().describe("The internal ID of a project's issue"),
    });
  • Output/response schema for issue links, defining structure of source_issue, target_issue, and link_type.
    export const GitLabIssueLinkSchema = z.object({
      source_issue: GitLabIssueSchema,
      target_issue: GitLabIssueSchema,
      link_type: z.enum(["relates_to", "blocks", "is_blocked_by"]),
    });
  • Extended issue schema used in listing issue links, adding link-specific fields like issue_link_id and link_type.
    export const GitLabIssueWithLinkDetailsSchema = GitLabIssueSchema.extend({
      issue_link_id: z.number(),
      link_type: z.enum(["relates_to", "blocks", "is_blocked_by"]),
      link_created_at: z.string(),
      link_updated_at: z.string(),
    });
Behavior2/5

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 states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or what permissions are required. For a tool that likely queries data, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'issue links' are, what format the list returns, or any behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of issue tracking systems, more context is needed for effective tool use.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying these parameters identify 'a specific issue', which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('issue links') with scope ('for a specific issue'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_issue_link' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 like 'get_issue_link' or 'list_issues'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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/harshmaur/gitlab-mcp'

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