Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gitlab-mcp

gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_issues

Retrieve issues from a GitLab project with filters for status, labels, and assignee username.

Instructions

이슈 목록 조회 (상태·레이블·담당자 필터)

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_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo페이지 번호 (1부터)
stateNo이슈 상태 필터
labelsNo레이블 필터 (쉼표 구분)
instanceNo대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
per_pageNo페이지당 개수 (기본 20)
project_idYes프로젝트 ID 또는 경로
assignee_usernameNo담당자 사용자명

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists filters, implying non-destructive read behavior, but does not explicitly state read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when no results exist.

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?

Single sentence with parenthetical filter summary is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by separating key features (e.g., pagination, project requirement) for clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical context such as the mandatory project_id, pagination behavior, and response format. It covers filters but not the broader operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description groups filters (status, label, assignee) but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for these or other parameters like page, per_page, or project_id.

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 issues with filtering by status, label, and assignee. This distinguishes it from single-issue retrieval (get_issue) and other issue-related tools. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates within a project context or supports pagination.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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 like get_issue for a single issue. The description implies usage for filtered listing but does not state prerequisites (e.g., project_id required) or exclusions.

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