get_available_queriesLists available GraphQL queries and mutations from the GitLab schema so users can identify supported API operations for exploration or integration.
Get list of available GraphQL queries and mutations from the GitLab schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userCredentials | No | Your GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / properties / userCredentials / anyOfPrevious 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"
+ }
+]v1.15.0Input schema / properties / userCredentials / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your GitLab credentials (optional - uses shared token if not provided)"New value: +"Your GitLab credentials (optional — falls back to the configured env token if not provided)"v1.7.3Does 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 without the description. Beyond saying it reads the GitLab schema, the description adds no behavioral context: no indication of whether the result is a flat name list or full query signatures, whether it is filtered by permission/license, or how large it may be.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is tight but arguably under-specified rather than deliberately minimal, which keeps it from a 5.
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 zero-required-parameter discovery tool with full annotation coverage this is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the description should say what the agent gets back (names, signatures, categories) and how to act on it; that omission is the main gap.
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?
There is a single optional parameter (userCredentials) with 100% schema description coverage, including the env-token fallback, so the schema carries the semantics. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is the ceiling without compensating detail in the description.
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?
Specific verb plus resource: lists available GraphQL queries and mutations from the GitLab schema, which is clearly a schema-introspection operation rather than execution. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as get_type_fields, resolve_path, or execute_custom_query, which an agent must reconcile on its own.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus execute_custom_query or get_type_fields, and no described workflow such as 'call this first, then execute a discovered query.' The name implies a discovery step, but nothing in the description confirms or constrains that usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.