gitlab-ci-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gitlab_list_schedules

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all CI/CD schedules for a GitLab project to review their active status, variables, and masked secret values without exposing credentials.

Instructions

List all CI/CD schedules of a project.

Variable keys whose name hints at a secret (TOKEN, PASSWORD, SECRET, CREDENTIAL, PRIVATE_KEY, API_KEY) keep the key but have the value replaced by *** so the agent still sees which variables exist.

Examples: - "What schedules do we have and are they all active" → default call - Don't use to run a schedule now — use gitlab_trigger_pipeline with the schedule's variables instead.

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": {
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_list_schedules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_path`	Yes	GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). Required by default. For legacy deployments only, set GITLAB_ALLOW_DEFAULT_PROJECT=true to use GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH when omitted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes
`schedules`	Yes
`active_count`	Yes
`schedules_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.5.5Nov 5, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / project_path / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / project_path / default
```
Removed value: -null
```

changedInput schema / properties / project_path / description

Previous value: -"GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). When omitted, the default from GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH env var is used."New value: +"GitLab project path (e.g. 'my-org/my-repo'). Required by default. For legacy deployments only, set GITLAB_ALLOW_DEFAULT_PROJECT=true to use GITLAB_PROJECT_PATH when omitted."

addedInput schema / properties / project_path / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_path / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "project_path"
+]
```

First observedv0.5.1Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information the agent could not infer: variable values whose keys look secret are masked as '***' while keys remain visible. It does not mention pagination or result ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the redaction note and examples each carry distinct value. The multi-line layout with a mid-description paragraph is slightly harder to scan than a tighter block, but no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read-only list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation alternative, and the one non-obvious return-value behavior (secret masking). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the legacy default-project fallback, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no project-path syntax or scoping detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('List all CI/CD schedules of a project'), and the exclusion example names gitlab_trigger_pipeline as the tool for a different intent. An agent can tell this apart from create/update/delete schedule siblings and from pipeline-run tools without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It supplies a concrete when-to-use scenario ('What schedules do we have and are they all active' → default call) and an explicit when-not with the alternative tool ('Don't use to *run* a schedule now — use gitlab_trigger_pipeline'). Both the selection condition and the redirect are stated outright.

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