List GitLab issues filtered by state and labels, with pagination via page and per_page to browse project issue trackers.
List issues. state: opened (default), closed or all. labels: all must match. Paged with per_page and page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| state | No | opened | |
| labels | No | ||
| project | No | group/name or numeric id; default: GITLAB_PROJECT or the origin remote | |
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior detail — default state, AND-semantics for labels, paging via per_page/page — but never clarifies scoping (which project/namespace, and what happens when project is omitted via the GITLAB_PROJECT fallback) or whether results are sorted/paginated beyond the parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the filtering and paging rules; nothing is wasted. The telegraphic style is efficient but slightly under-explains, keeping it from a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering and pagination but omits scope (project default resolution) and any hint about the returned issue fields or ordering, leaving an agent to infer what a call returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20% (only project is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the state enum values plus the default, explains that labels are ANDed ('all must match'), and states that per_page/page drive paging. Only the project parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List issues'), clearly distinguishable from gitlab_issue_get which fetches a single issue. It does not explicitly name that sibling or state the scope (project vs all accessible issues), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The filtering rules (default state=opened, labels must all match) imply how to use the tool for common queries, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative gitlab_issue_get for single-issue retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.