List all wiki pages in a GitLab project to get their slugs, titles, and formats. Set with_content to true to include full page content.
List all wiki pages in a GitLab project (slugs, titles, and formats)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Project numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically. | |
| with_content | Yes | If true, includes full wiki content for each page |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (slugs, titles, formats) and the fact that it returns ALL pages, but omits pagination, result limits, and permission requirements that matter for a project-wide listing.
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 sentence with the verb and resource first and the return contents as a compact parenthetical. No filler and nothing wasted.
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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields. The only meaningful gap is pagination/result-size behavior, which an agent would need for large projects.
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%, so both project_id and with_content are already documented in the schema, including ID formats and the default for with_content. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.
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) plus resource (wiki pages) and scope (in a GitLab project), and even enumerates the returned fields (slugs, titles, formats). It clearly reads as the collection-level counterpart to get_wiki/create_wiki, though it doesn't name them 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 mention of alternatives such as get_wiki for a single page. For a simple list tool the intent is largely implied by the verb, but nothing resolves the choice between this and its wiki siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.