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

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_repository_tree

Read-only

List files and directories in a GitLab project repository to navigate its structure by specifying a path or branch.

Instructions

List files and directories in a project repository.

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_repository_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
pathNoDirectory path (default: root)
refNoBranch or tag (default: default branch)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds little beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and input schema. It does not disclose whether the listing is recursive, the structure of returned data, or default behaviors like root path and default branch. Since annotations already indicate read-only, the description's value is minimal.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly lacking in detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return format (e.g., whether it includes file types, modes, or recursive structure). The current description is too minimal for a list tool, leaving the agent uncertain about the response.

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?

The input schema descriptions are complete (100% coverage), providing clear definitions for project_id, path, and ref. The description does not add additional semantic context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists files and directories in a project repository. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('files and directories'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_branches or get_file, which could be improved.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file or list_commits. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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