gitlab-mcp

gitlab_mr_list

Read-only

List a project's merge requests on GitLab, defaulting to opened ones and supporting filters like state, labels, author, assignee, branches, search, and pagination.

Instructions

List a project's merge requests. Defaults to state=opened because the raw API would return every state at once. This version has no reviewers or draft filter - read work_in_progress on each item instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	1-based page number; see pagination.nextPage in the result
`sort`	No
`scope`	No	created_by_me / assigned_to_me / all; combined with author_id or assignee_id
`state`	No	'all' for every state	opened
`labels`	No	all listed labels must match
`search`	No	matches title and description
`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
`order_by`	No
`author_id`	No	filter: author numeric user id (find it with gitlab_users_search); 0 unassigns
`milestone`	No	milestone title
`assignee_id`	No	filter: assignee numeric user id (find it with gitlab_users_search); 0 unassigns
`source_branch`	No	branch name, e.g. feature/login
`target_branch`	No	branch name, e.g. feature/login

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: the default state=opened exists because the raw API would otherwise return every state, and it discloses missing filter capabilities plus the workaround.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then defaults, then limitations. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no explanation, and the rich schema covers the 14 parameters. The description adequately flags the state default and the missing reviewer/draft filters, though it could say more about pagination behavior.

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 86%, so the schema documents the parameters well. The description only echoes the state default and notes absent filters, adding little semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a project's merge requests'), clearly distinguishable from write operations like gitlab_mr_create or gitlab_mr_merge. It does not name a sibling alternative directly, but its scope as a listing tool is unambiguous.

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?

Explains the state default and warns that reviewers/draft filters are unavailable, directing the agent to read work_in_progress on each item instead. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as gitlab_mr_get or gitlab_raw_api.

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