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

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_project_issues

Read-only

Retrieve issues for a GitLab project, filtering by state, labels, milestone, assignee, or iteration.

Instructions

List issues for a specific project (not group). Filter by state, labels, milestone, assignee, iteration.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_project_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
stateNoFilter by state
searchNoSearch text
labelsNoLabels (comma-separated)
milestoneNoMilestone name
assignee_usernameNoAssignee username
iteration_idNoNumeric iteration (sprint) ID. Premium/Ultimate only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent. However, it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, permissions, or rate limits) beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words. Extremely concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequately covers the main purpose and filter keys, but lacks mention of pagination, sorting, or return format. Given the number of parameters and no output schema, it is minimally complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description lists some filters but adds no new meaning or examples beyond the schema.

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 action (list), the resource (issues), and the scope (for a specific project, not group). It differentiates from siblings like list_issues that might be group-wide.

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?

Provides clear context ('for a specific project (not group)') and lists filter parameters, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives among siblings.

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