@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

get_work_item_id

Read-only

Retrieve the global ID of a GitLab epic or issue to use as parent or child when linking work items. Required for link_work_items and unlink_work_items operations.

Instructions

Resolve the WorkItem global ID (gid://gitlab/WorkItem/N) for an epic or issue. Required as parent_work_item_id / child_work_item_ids on link_work_items and unlink_work_items.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_type": "<item_type>",
      "iid": "<iid>"
    },
    "name": "get_work_item_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item_type`	Yes	Work item type
`group_id`	No	Group ID (required if item_type is epic)
`project_id`	No	Project ID (required if item_type is issue)
`iid`	Yes	IID of the epic or issue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context about the ID format and purpose, but doesn't mention error behavior or rate limits, which are not critical for a lookup tool.

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, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides critical usage context.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with good annotations and schema, the description is sufficient. Could mention output format explicitly, but the 'gid://...' pattern implies the return type.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds no extra parameter details. However, the overall use case is clarified, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool resolves the WorkItem global ID for epics/issues. Explains its role as a prerequisite for link_work_items/unlink_work_items, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly specifies when to use (before linking/unlinking) and the required parameters. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is strong.

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

Deploy Server