Skip to main content
Glama

gitlab_list_webhooks

Retrieve all webhooks associated with a specific GitLab project by providing its ID or URL-encoded path. Use this tool to monitor and manage project integrations effectively.

Instructions

List webhooks for a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe ID or URL-encoded path of the project

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the gitlab_list_webhooks tool. It validates the project_id parameter and calls the integrationsManager to list webhooks, then formats the response.
    export const listWebhooks: ToolHandler = async (params, context) => {
      const { project_id } = params.arguments || {};
      if (!project_id) {
        throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidParams, 'project_id is required');
      }
      
      const data = await context.integrationsManager.listWebhooks(project_id as string | number);
      return formatResponse(data);
    };
  • The input schema definition for the gitlab_list_webhooks tool, specifying the required project_id parameter.
    {
      name: 'gitlab_list_webhooks',
      description: 'List webhooks for a project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID or URL-encoded path of the project'
          }
        },
        required: ['project_id']
      }
    },
  • Registration of the gitlab_list_webhooks tool in the central tool registry, mapping the tool name to its handler function.
    gitlab_list_webhooks: integrationHandlers.listWebhooks,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the output format looks like (e.g., pagination, fields returned), or any rate limits. 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, which are crucial for a tool that interacts with a system like GitLab. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'project_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks for a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_webhook' (singular) or 'gitlab_list_integrations' (which might include webhooks), missing full sibling distinction.

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 doesn't mention scenarios like retrieving all webhooks versus a specific one, or how it relates to other list tools (e.g., 'gitlab_list_integrations'), leaving usage context implied at best.

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