gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

get_issue

Retrieve detailed information about a specific GitLab issue using its project ID and issue internal ID.

Instructions

이슈 상세 조회

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>",
      "issue_iid": "<issue_iid>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`issue_iid`	Yes	이슈 내부 번호
`project_id`	Yes	프로젝트 ID 또는 경로

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided and description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or error handling. For a read operation, description should indicate it is non-destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single short sentence (3 Korean words) which is concise but barely adds value beyond the name. Could be front-loaded with more context.

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?

No output schema exists, yet description does not mention what is returned (e.g., issue details, fields). Incomplete for an agent to infer response structure.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond schema; baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description '이슈 상세 조회' (View issue details) combined with the name 'get_issue' and required parameters issue_iid and project_id clearly indicates it retrieves a single issue. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues, but could be more explicit in English.

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 on when to use this tool vs siblings like list_issues, create_issue, or update_issue. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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