gitlab-mcp

gitlab_labels_list

Read-only

List a project's labels before setting them to avoid creating unknown labels silently or getting rejected based on account permissions.

Instructions

List a project's labels. Check here before setting labels: 11.3 creates an unknown label silently when the account may, and rejects it when the account may not.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-based page number; see pagination.nextPage in the result
`search`	No	substring search
`perPage`	No	items per page, max 100 (GitLab default is 20)
`project`	Yes	project id ('42') or full path ('group/subgroup/app'); a path is URL-encoded for you

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`pagination`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile. The description adds a real caveat about unknown-label behavior when setting labels, but it is cryptically worded ('11.3') and describes a neighboring operation rather than this tool's own filtering or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the caveat, with no wasted filler. The second sentence is slightly opaque but earns its place as a warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all parameters are documented by the schema. The description covers purpose and a pre-use caveat adequately, though it could tie the caveat more directly to this tool's output.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so page, perPage, search, and project are all self-documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a project's labels'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like gitlab_tags_list and gitlab_branches_list. An agent knows exactly what it returns.

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?

Explicitly says to check this tool before setting labels, giving a clear triggering condition. It does not name the sibling tool that actually sets labels, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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