Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_users

Read-only

Fetch GitLab user details by username. Retrieve account info for known users; use search tools to discover multiple users. Read-only, returns errors for invalid IDs or permissions.

Instructions

Get GitLab user details by usernames. Use this for a known resource or result; choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources. It is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data; missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. When project_id or group_id is accepted, provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema; use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
usernamesYesArray of usernames to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv2.1.45
  3. Removedv2.1.43
  4. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  9. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly and openWorld, so the description's read-only/no-mutation statement is redundant. However, it adds useful behavioral detail by disclosing that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permissions, and rate limits surface as errors. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent anticipate failure modes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains reasonably compact. The final sentence about identifiers and pagination is somewhat generic and not fully applicable to this schema, but it does not significantly bloat the text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, error behavior, and read-only status. The lack of an output schema is offset by the clear statement that user details are returned. The irrelevant project_id/pagination guidance is a minor blemish but does not make the description incomplete.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (usernames and jmespath) at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning; its mention of project_id/group_id and pagination fields does not match this tool's actual schema and is mostly generic boilerplate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get GitLab user details by usernames.' It also clarifies the intended scope by saying to use it for a 'known resource or result' rather than for discovery. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_user, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 gives explicit direction: use this tool for a known resource or result, and use a 'corresponding list or search tool' when discovery is needed. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name specific sibling tools or explain when get_user would be preferred.

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