gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

list_groups

List GitLab groups with search filtering and pagination to browse results.

Instructions

그룹 목록 조회 (검색·페이징)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	페이지 번호 (1부터)
`search`	No	검색어 필터
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`per_page`	No	페이지당 개수 (기본 20)

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'list with search/paging' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, default sorting, rate limits, or what fields are returned. A listing tool should at least mention that it returns all accessible groups or that it's paginated (which is implied by paging params but not stated).

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 very short (a noun phrase), which is efficient but omits critical context. It is front-loaded with key words but lacks a complete sentence or actionable verb. It is not overly verbose, but the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of group objects with fields). It only mentions listing with search/paging but does not describe the output format or behavior like default ordering or whether instance is required. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% (each parameter has a description). The description adds the context '검색·페이징' confirming search and paging, but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The instance parameter is already documented in schema. Thus, the description does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.

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 '그룹 목록 조회 (검색·페이징)' clearly indicates a query/list action on groups resource with search/paging. The tool name 'list_groups' aligns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_subgroups' or 'list_group_projects', though the resource focus is evident.

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 versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't distinguish from 'list_subgroups' for listing subgroups under a specific group, or 'list_group_projects' for projects within a group. The description lacks any usage conditions or exclusions.

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