Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitLab MCP Server

GitLab MCP Server

by ttpears
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

MR Reviewers

get_merge_request_reviewers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve approval and reviewer status for a GitLab merge request, including who approved it and each reviewer’s current review state.

Instructions

Get approval and reviewer status for a merge request, including who approved and review states

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iidYesMerge request IID
projectPathYesFull path of the project (e.g., "group/project-name")
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / userCredentials / description
      Previous 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)"
  3. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 fully covered. The description adds that the result includes approval status and review states, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether unapproved reviewers are included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the returned content; nothing is wasted. It is slightly terse for a tool whose output shape an agent must anticipate, but it is well structured.

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 carries the burden of describing return data, and it does so at a high level (approvers, review states). Given 100% schema coverage and full annotation coverage, the remaining gap — exact return structure — is minor.

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 projectPath, iid and userCredentials are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Get approval and reviewer status for a merge request', with added detail on what is returned (who approved, review states). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_merge_request_context or get_merge_requests implicitly, but never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the purpose — an agent needing approval/reviewer data would pick this. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against related tools such as get_merge_request_context, so the selection relies on 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