List all jobs in a GitLab pipeline, including each job's ID, name, status, stage, and web URL, with pagination and optional project selection.
List the jobs of a pipeline (id, name, status, stage, web_url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| project | No | group/name or numeric id; default: GITLAB_PROJECT or the origin remote | |
| per_page | No | ||
| pipeline_id | Yes |
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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the projected return fields, which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering despite page/per_page parameters existing.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the key output fields come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is the same thing that leaves gaps elsewhere.
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?
With no output schema, naming the returned fields is a real contribution, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a paginated list tool it omits the fact that results are paged (page, per_page default 30, max 100), which an agent needs to retrieve full results.
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 description coverage is only 25% — project is the sole documented parameter, and page, per_page, and pipeline_id are undocumented. The description does not compensate: it never explains pagination, per-page limits, or that pipeline_id identifies the target pipeline, leaving only the parameter names to infer meaning.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('jobs of a pipeline') with the returned fields enumerated. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gitlab_pipeline_get (pipeline metadata) and gitlab_job_play (acts on a job), though it never names them explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus gitlab_pipeline_get or gitlab_job_play, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The read-only 'list' framing implies usage but nothing routes the agent among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.