Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gitlab_list_wiki_pages

List wiki pages from a GitLab project by providing project ID or namespace path. Optionally include page content for a comprehensive view.

Instructions

Wiki pages (GET /projects/:id/wikis).

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_list_wiki_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesNumeric ID or path with namespace, e.g. group/project.
withContentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the resource and HTTP method, with no mention of read-only behavior, return contents, effects of the withContent parameter, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loads the resource, but it is a fragment rather than a clear sentence. It omits a verb and reads more like a label than an actionable description, making the brevity counterproductive.

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 simple two-parameter endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves essential context missing: what withContent does, what the response contains, and any project-related scope details. It is not complete enough to reliably invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but withContent has no description and the tool description does not clarify it. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the endpoint path, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 is a noun phrase 'Wiki pages' plus the API endpoint, which implies a list operation but does not explicitly state one. It is distinct from siblings by resource, but the tool name carries most of the meaning rather than the description itself.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool or how it relates to other GitLab tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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