Retrieve GitLab groups for the authenticated user, filtered by ownership, search, or minimum access level.
List groups the authenticated user is a member or owner of
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| owned | No | If true, limits to groups explicitly owned by the current user | |
| search | No | Search query to filter group names/paths | |
| per_page | Yes | ||
| min_access_level | No | Minimum access level in the group |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does clarify the inclusion criterion (member OR owner), which is real behavioral information. However it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, whether private/subgroups are included, or permission requirements, so a read-only list tool remains only partially characterized.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves several gaps that a slightly longer description could have closed.
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 low-complexity read-only listing the description covers the essential 'what you get' question, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% of parameters undocumented, an agent lacks detail on pagination and result scoping that the definition should supply.
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 60% (page and per_page are undocumented), and the description adds no parameter-level detail at all. 'Member or owner' loosely gestures at the owned parameter, but search, min_access_level, and pagination are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (List) and resource (groups) and adds a meaningful scope qualifier: groups where the authenticated user is a member or owner. That distinguishes it from get_group (single group) and list_group_projects (projects within a group), though it never names those siblings 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'the authenticated user' implies a personal-scope listing, but the agent must infer that it should pick this over list_my_projects or get_group on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.