@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

search_issues

Read-only

Search issues by full-text query within a GitLab project or group. Optionally filter by state for targeted results.

Instructions

Search issues by full-text query within a project or group. Maps to GET /:scope/:id/search?scope=issues.

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": {
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	Yes	Search scope: 'project' (id is numeric Project ID) or 'group' (id is group ID or full path).
`id`	Yes	Project ID (numeric, as a string) or group ID/path
`query`	Yes	Search query
`state`	No	Filter by state

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds that it maps to a GET endpoint and involves full-text query, which provides mild behavioral context beyond annotations, but no details on pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 sentence and a technical mapping, with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded and concise, though slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve clarity.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters with no output schema, but the description does not explain the return format, pagination, or sorting. A search tool should ideally mention response structure or limits to help the agent understand what to expect.

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% with each parameter described. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it restates 'full-text query' but doesn't elaborate on query syntax or state filter behavior. Baseline 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?

Clearly states the tool searches issues by full-text query within a project or group. The verb 'search' and resource 'issues' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like list_issues (which lists without full-text) and search_merge_requests (different resource).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for different scenarios. Only describes the base functionality.

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

Deploy Server