Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_list_users

Retrieve and filter GitLab users by active status or search criteria like username, name, or email using the GitLab MCP Server for streamlined user management.

Instructions

List GitLab users

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activeNoFilter users by active status
searchNoSearch users by username, name or email

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic for the gitlab_list_users tool by calling the usersGroupsManager.listUsers method with extracted parameters.
    export const listUsers: ToolHandler = async (params, context) => {
      const { username, search, active, blocked, external } = params.arguments || {};
      
      const data = await context.usersGroupsManager.listUsers({
        username: username as string | undefined,
        search: search as string | undefined,
        active: active as boolean | undefined,
        blocked: blocked as boolean | undefined,
        external: external as boolean | undefined
      });
      return formatResponse(data);
    };
  • The input schema definition for the gitlab_list_users tool, specifying parameters like search and active.
    {
      name: 'gitlab_list_users',
      description: 'List GitLab users',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          search: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Search users by username, name or email'
          },
          active: {
            type: 'boolean',
            description: 'Filter users by active status'
          }
        }
      }
    },
  • The registration of the gitlab_list_users tool in the central tool registry, mapping it to the listUsers handler function.
    gitlab_list_users: usersGroupsHandlers.listUsers,
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List GitLab users', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data is returned (e.g., user fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource without any waste. It efficiently communicates the core purpose in a single, clear phrase, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the complexity of a list operation with filtering parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., user attributes), pagination, error handling, or how filters interact. With no annotations and an output schema missing, the description should provide more context to help the agent use the tool effectively, but it does not, leaving key behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('active' and 'search'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it mentions no parameters. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here since the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the well-documented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List GitLab users' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GitLab users'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all users vs. filtered) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_user' (singular) or 'gitlab_list_group_members', making it somewhat vague. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name, but it could be more precise.

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. It does not mention contexts like filtering needs, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or comparisons to siblings such as 'gitlab_get_user' for single users or 'gitlab_list_group_members' for group-specific lists. Without any usage context, the agent must infer based on the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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