Skip to main content
Glama
harshmaur

GitLab MCP Server

by harshmaur

list_merge_requests

Retrieve and filter merge requests from a GitLab project using criteria like assignee, author, labels, state, and date ranges to manage code review workflows.

Instructions

List merge requests in a GitLab project with filtering options

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
assignee_idNoReturns merge requests assigned to the given user ID
assignee_usernameNoReturns merge requests assigned to the given username
author_idNoReturns merge requests created by the given user ID
author_usernameNoReturns merge requests created by the given username
reviewer_idNoReturns merge requests which have the user as a reviewer
reviewer_usernameNoReturns merge requests which have the user as a reviewer
created_afterNoReturn merge requests created after the given time
created_beforeNoReturn merge requests created before the given time
updated_afterNoReturn merge requests updated after the given time
updated_beforeNoReturn merge requests updated before the given time
labelsNoArray of label names
milestoneNoMilestone title
scopeNoReturn merge requests from a specific scope
searchNoSearch for specific terms
stateNoReturn merge requests with a specific state
order_byNoReturn merge requests ordered by the given field
sortNoReturn merge requests sorted in ascending or descending order
target_branchNoReturn merge requests targeting a specific branch
source_branchNoReturn merge requests from a specific source branch
wipNoFilter merge requests against their wip status
with_labels_detailsNoReturn more details for each label
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)
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 the tool lists merge requests with filtering, but doesn't describe key behaviors: it doesn't mention pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output looks like (e.g., array of objects). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List merge requests in a GitLab project') and adds a useful qualifier ('with filtering options'). There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (24 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose, missing details on pagination, authentication, error handling, and output format. For a tool with many filtering options and no structured output schema, more context is needed to help an agent use it correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 24 parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only generically mentioning 'filtering options' without explaining specific filters or their interactions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have highlighted key parameters like 'project_id' as required.

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 action ('List') and resource ('merge requests in a GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions 'filtering options' which hints at functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'get_merge_request' beyond the resource type.

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 sibling tools like 'list_issues' for different resource types or 'get_merge_request' for retrieving a single merge request. There's no context about prerequisites, such as authentication or project access requirements.

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