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

gitlab-mcp-server

by kopiloto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_repositories

Find GitLab repositories by searching names, descriptions, or content with keywords.

Instructions

Search for GitLab repositories by name, description, or keywords.

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": {
      "search": "<search>"
    },
    "name": "search_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchYesSearch term to find repositories by name, description, or content
per_pageNoNumber of repositories 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?

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or how search matching works (e.g., exact match vs. fuzzy).

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or how to interpret results. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, more contextual detail is expected.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a slight nuance by mentioning 'keywords' versus the schema's 'content', but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'search', the resource 'GitLab repositories', and the search scope 'by name, description, or keywords'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_projects (which lists all projects) and get_repository_details (which retrieves details of a specific repository).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_repository_details. There are no statements about when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed.

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