Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ttpears

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

User Activity Summary

analytics_user_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Aggregate a user's GitLab activity over a time window into totals by action type, with breakdowns by project and day. Use it for counts instead of a raw event feed.

Instructions

Aggregated activity summary for a user over a time window — totals by action type (pushes, MRs opened/merged, comments, approvals), breakdown by project and by day. Use this instead of list_user_events when you want counts rather than a raw event feed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesUsername (e.g. "alice") or numeric user ID
sinceYesISO date/datetime, inclusive lower bound (e.g. "2026-03-01" or "2026-03-01T00:00:00Z")
untilNoISO date/datetime, inclusive upper bound. Defaults to now.
maxEventsNoCap on events fetched. Defaults to 2000; returned envelope has truncated:true if reached.
userCredentialsNoYour GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "properties": {
-      "accessToken": {
-        "minLength": 1,
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "gitlabUrl": {
-        "format": "uri",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "accessToken": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "gitlabUrl": {
+        "format": "uri",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. Addedv1.15.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (totals by action type plus project and day breakdowns), which is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of covering truncation behavior or auth fallback, though both are documented in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the output, the second routes against the sibling. The scoping information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return content (action-type totals, project and day breakdowns), which is the main thing an agent needs to know before calling. It is slightly incomplete on result-envelope details such as truncation, but that is disclosed via the maxEvents schema entry.

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 user, since, until, maxEvents and userCredentials are all fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the truncation flag. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. the time-window semantics of since/until or the maxEvents cap), so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Aggregated activity summary for a user over a time window') and enumerates exactly what is aggregated: totals by action type, breakdown by project and by day. It also explicitly separates itself from the raw-event sibling list_user_events, so an agent can pick it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this instead of list_user_events when you want counts rather than a raw event feed.' Both the alternative and the condition that selects it are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools