Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by mcpland
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Pipeline Schedules

gitlab_list_pipeline_schedules
Read-onlyIdempotent

List scheduled GitLab pipelines with cron, timezone, next run time, owner, and active state; filter by active scope and paginate results.

Instructions

List scheduled pipelines with cron, timezone, next_run_at, owner, and active state. Use gitlab_get_pipeline_schedule for variables and inputs.

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": "gitlab_list_pipeline_schedules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
scopeNo
per_pageNo
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds value by naming the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how many schedules are returned, which matters for a list endpoint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by the delegation hint. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, naming the returned fields gives an adequate picture of results, and the sibling pointer covers the detail case. The main shortfall is that the four input parameters are left entirely unexplained.

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 four parameters (page, per_page, scope, project_id). The description never mentions project scoping, pagination, or that scope accepts active/inactive, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 scheduled pipelines') and enumerates the fields returned (cron, timezone, next_run_at, owner, active state). It also names the sibling for deeper inspection, so an agent can distinguish the light list view from the detail view, though it doesn't describe scope/pagination behavior.

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?

Provides one useful routing rule: use gitlab_get_pipeline_schedule for variables and inputs. It doesn't say when to prefer this over other listing siblings or how the scope parameter should drive usage, leaving most when-to-use reasoning to the agent.

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