Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_issues

Read-only

List issues from a GitLab group with filters by state, search, labels, milestone, assignee, iteration ID, and sort order.

Instructions

Lister les issues d'un groupe GitLab. Filtrer par etat, recherche, labels, milestone ou assignee.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYesID ou chemin URL du groupe GitLab (ex: '42' ou 'wanadev/kp1'). Si vous n'avez que le nom, appelez d'abord list_groups pour trouver le chemin exact.
stateNoFiltrer par etat
searchNoRecherche textuelle
labelsNoLabels (separes par virgule)
milestoneNoNom du milestone
assignee_usernameNoNom d'utilisateur de l'assignee
iteration_idNoNumeric iteration (sprint) ID. Premium/Ultimate only. Get IDs from list_iterations.
order_byNoTrier par champ
sortNoOrdre de tri

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description adds filtering context but no additional behavioral traits. No contradiction, but the description doesn't mention pagination or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous text. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's function and main filters. It could mention return format or default sorting, but the schema covers sorting. Minor gap in completeness.

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 parameters are well-described. The description reiterates filtering options without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists issues of a GitLab group, distinguishing it from project-level or search tools. The verb 'Lister' and resource 'issues' are specific. Sibling tools like list_project_issues and search_issues have different scopes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The parameter description for group_id hints at a prerequisite (call list_groups if only name), but no when-not or alternative tool mentions.

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