Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_mr_participants

Retrieve the list of participants for a specific merge request to identify reviewers, assignees, and commenters.

Instructions

MR 참여자 목록 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>",
      "mr_iid": "<mr_iid>"
    },
    "name": "get_mr_participants"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mr_iidYes
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states a read-like action ('조회') without confirming read-only behavior, permission requirements, or other traits. The agent gains no insight into side effects or constraints.

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?

The description is extremely concise but lacks substantive content. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it minimally adequate.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what participants are, the return format, or any constraints like required permissions or pagination.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (instance parameter described). The description adds no parameter-level details, so it does not compensate for the gap. The meaning of mr_iid and project_id is left implicit.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of MR participants. It uses a specific verb ('조회') and resource ('MR 참여자 목록'), and the name aligns. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_merge_request, the purpose is distinct by context.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or comparison with sibling tools like list_merge_requests or get_merge_request.

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