gitlab-mcp

by wisesky0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

list_merge_requests

List merge requests from a GitLab project, filtering by state, source branch, or target branch.

Instructions

MR 목록 조회 (상태·브랜치 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_merge_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	페이지 번호 (1부터)
`state`	No	MR 상태
`instance`	No	대상 GitLab 인스턴스명 (생략 시 default)
`per_page`	No	페이지당 개수 (기본 20)
`project_id`	Yes	프로젝트 ID 또는 경로
`source_branch`	No	소스 브랜치 필터
`target_branch`	No	타깃 브랜치 필터

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core purpose and filtering options. It omits details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or required permissions. For a listing tool, this is insufficient.

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 short line in Korean, which is concise and front-loaded. It contains no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail. Still, it earns its place.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, many sibling tools) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to choose between this and other MR listing tools (e.g., get_merge_request) or clarify behavior like pagination. Incomplete for a tool with many filtering options.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no additional value is provided.

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?

The description 'MR 목록 조회 (상태·브랜치 필터)' translates to 'List MRs (status/branch filter)', clearly stating the tool retrieves a list of merge requests with filtering options. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_merge_request (single MR) and list_mr_notes (notes).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing MRs with status and branch filters. It clearly indicates the tool is for filtered listing, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many MR-related siblings. Still, the context is adequate.

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