gitlab-mcp

List Group Merge Requests

gitlab_list_group_merge_requests

Read-onlyIdempotent

List merge requests across all projects and subgroups in a GitLab group, using filters like state, labels, author, and reviewer; set non_archived=true to skip archived projects.

Instructions

List merge requests across every project in a group and its subgroups, with the same filters as gitlab_list_merge_requests. non_archived=true skips archived projects.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_list_group_merge_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wip`	No
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`scope`	No
`state`	No
`labels`	No
`search`	No
`group_id`	Yes
`order_by`	No
`per_page`	No
`author_id`	No
`milestone`	No
`assignee_id`	No
`reviewer_id`	No
`non_archived`	No
`created_after`	No
`source_branch`	No
`target_branch`	No
`updated_after`	No
`created_before`	No
`updated_before`	No
`author_username`	No
`assignee_username`	No
`reviewer_username`	No
`with_labels_details`	No
`approved_by_usernames`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — non_archived=true skips archived projects — but says nothing about pagination, result volume, permissions, or ordering defaults, which matters for a group-wide fan-out query.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the differentiating scope stated first and the archived-project caveat second. Every clause 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?

With 26 parameters, 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, this definition is far too thin — an agent must consult another tool's documentation to understand most of the inputs. The scope sentence and one flag are not enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% across 26 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden — yet it clarifies only non_archived and defers everything else to 'the same filters as gitlab_list_merge_requests'. Key parameters (state, scope, order_by, with_labels_details, approved_by_usernames) get no meaning added here, and the sibling cross-reference is not self-contained.

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 gives a specific verb (List), resource (merge requests) and explicit scope (every project in a group and its subgroups), which is exactly what separates it from the project-scoped gitlab_list_merge_requests. An agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Scope language ('across every project in a group and its subgroups') plus the pointer to gitlab_list_merge_requests for filter semantics gives clear selection context. It never states an explicit exclusion or 'use X instead when...' rule, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server