Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp-server

gitlab-mcp-server

by kopiloto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_projects

Retrieve GitLab projects accessible to the authenticated user, with optional filtering by ownership or starred status.

Instructions

List GitLab projects accessible to the authenticated user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownedNoOnly list projects owned by the authenticated user
starredNoOnly list starred projects
per_pageNoNumber of projects to return (max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose pagination, rate limits, or ordering behavior. It only states the basic function, leaving significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Single, straightforward sentence without unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.

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?

Lacks information about output structure, pagination details, or how results are ordered. In the context of multiple list/search siblings and no output schema, the description is insufficient.

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%, with clear parameter explanations. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('GitLab projects'), and the scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_group_projects.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_group_projects or search_repositories. The description only implies a scope but does not provide decision criteria.

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