gitlab-mcp-server

by kopiloto

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

list_merge_requests

Retrieve a list of merge requests from a GitLab project with options to filter by state, sort order, and pagination.

Instructions

List merge requests for a GitLab repository.

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_merge_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The project ID or path (e.g., 'username/repo-name')
`state`	No	State of merge requests (opened, closed, merged, all)	all
`per_page`	No	Number of merge requests to return (max 100)
`order_by`	No	Order by field (created_at, updated_at, title)	created_at
`sort`	No	Sort order (asc, desc)	desc

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list merge requests', missing details on pagination, permissions, rate limits, or output structure. Does not clarify that it returns a list of merge request objects.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly expanded to mention key parameters (state, order) without losing efficiency.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (list of MRs). It lacks completeness for a list endpoint. The schema covers parameters but the tool's overall context is underspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, constraints, or relations).

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?

Clearly states the action ('List merge requests') and the resource ('GitLab repository'). Differentiates from siblings like get_merge_request_analytics or get_repository_details. Lacks specificity about filtering and sorting options, but the verb-resource pair is unambiguous.

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 usage guidance provided. Does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_merge_request_analytics), nor when not to use it. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server