Retrieve related, blocking, and blocked-by issue dependencies for a GitLab project issue using its project ID and issue IID.
List related, blocking, or blocked-by issue dependencies
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_iid | Yes | The project-scoped issue number (e.g. 14 for #14) | |
| project_id | Yes | Project numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and enumerates link types, but says nothing about permissions required, pagination, whether links are returned grouped by type, or what happens with no links. That is a substantial gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 phrase with no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but the structure is clean and the key information leads.
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 two-parameter, schema-complete read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should compensate with at least a note on read-only safety and return shape. It leaves those to inference.
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 100% (both project_id and issue_iid are documented with examples in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already supplies.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'List ... issue dependencies' with the specific link categories (related, blocking, blocked-by) named. An agent can distinguish it from create_issue_link or get_issue. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is not 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?
No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as get_issue (which also surfaces links) or create_issue_link. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.