gitlab-mcp

List Pipeline Schedule Pipelines

gitlab_list_pipeline_schedule_pipelines

Read-onlyIdempotent

List pipelines triggered by a specific pipeline schedule and filter results by scope, status, sort, or date to inspect scheduled run history.

Instructions

List pipelines triggered by one pipeline schedule, with scope, status, sort, and date filters.

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": {
      "pipeline_schedule_id": "<pipeline_schedule_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_list_pipeline_schedule_pipelines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`sort`	No
`scope`	No
`status`	No
`per_page`	No
`project_id`	No
`created_after`	No
`updated_after`	No
`created_before`	No
`updated_before`	No
`pipeline_schedule_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the filterable dimensions but says nothing about result ordering defaults, pagination behavior (page/per_page exist but are never acknowledged), or what happens when the schedule has no pipelines.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core purpose comes first and the filter list trails it. It is efficiently worded, though it is arguably too terse for an 11-parameter tool rather than bloated.

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 tool with 11 parameters, 3 enums, no output schema and zero schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough to call it correctly. An agent cannot learn from the description how to paginate results, how date filters are formatted, or which of project_id/pipeline_schedule_id is truly needed.

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 11 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It names scope, status, sort and date filters, but adds no meaning beyond the parameter names — no note that project_id may be required in practice, no explanation of what 'scope' values like 'branches'/'tags' mean, and pagination parameters are entirely absent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List pipelines') plus a clear scope qualifier ('triggered by one pipeline schedule'), which implicitly separates it from gitlab_list_pipelines and gitlab_list_merge_request_pipelines. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'triggered by one pipeline schedule' implies the tool is for inspecting one schedule's run history, which is enough to route an agent away from the general pipeline listers. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the project_id or a valid schedule id.

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

Deploy Server