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

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_labels

Read-only

Retrieve all labels from a GitLab group, including counts of associated issues and merge requests.

Instructions

Lister les labels d'un groupe GitLab avec le nombre d'issues et MRs associees.

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_labels"
  }
}

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.
searchNoRecherche textuelle dans le nom du label

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by noting that the tool returns counts of issues and MRs associated with each label. This provides useful behavioral context about the output.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it lists and the extra count information. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning response format or pagination, but it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% and both parameters are documented in detail in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 labels of a GitLab group with counts of associated issues and MRs. It uses a specific verb ('Lister') and resource ('labels d'un groupe GitLab'), and is distinct from sibling tools like create_label, update_label, and delete_label.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context (read-only listing vs. mutation siblings) makes it reasonably clear. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites beyond what the schema provides.

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