Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_list_group_members

Retrieve a list of members associated with a specific GitLab group by providing the group ID or path. Facilitates user management and access control within the GitLab MCP Server.

Instructions

List members of a group

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesThe ID or URL-encoded path of the group

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the logic for the gitlab_list_group_members tool. It validates the group_id parameter and delegates to the usersGroupsManager to fetch the list of group members.
    export const listGroupMembers: ToolHandler = async (params, context) => {
      const { group_id } = params.arguments || {};
      if (!group_id) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, 'group_id is required');
      }
      
      const data = await context.usersGroupsManager.listGroupMembers(group_id as string | number);
      return formatResponse(data);
    };
  • The input schema definition for the gitlab_list_group_members tool, specifying the required group_id parameter.
      name: 'gitlab_list_group_members',
      description: 'List members of a group',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          group_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID or URL-encoded path of the group'
          }
        },
        required: ['group_id']
      }
    },
  • Registration of the gitlab_list_group_members tool in the central tool registry, mapping the tool name to its handler function.
    gitlab_list_group_members: usersGroupsHandlers.listGroupMembers,
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify important details like pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned (e.g., member roles, access levels). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return value contains (member details, pagination info), behavioral constraints, or how it differs from similar list operations. Given the context complexity and lack of structured data, more completeness is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'group_id' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is complete.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('members of a group'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_project_members' or 'gitlab_list_users', which would require explicit distinction for a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gitlab_list_project_members' and 'gitlab_list_users' available, there's no indication of when group members should be listed instead of project members or all users, leaving usage context unclear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rifqi96/mcp-gitlab'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server