Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_group_members

Read-only

List GitLab group members by name or username, with pagination and filtering, including optional inherited members.

Instructions

List members of a GitLab group with optional name or username search. Use this for a collection of resources; choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect. 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
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
queryNoSearch for members by name or username
group_idYesGroup ID or URL-encoded path
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (default: 20, max: 100)
user_idsNoFilter by user IDs
skip_usersNoUser IDs to exclude
include_inheritanceNoInclude inherited members. Defaults to false.

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. Addedv2.1.46

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces that it is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. It is slightly dense with multiple clauses in the last sentence, but every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, error behavior, and identifier guidance. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature make this a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds general guidance about using numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths and pagination fields, but does not add specific meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists members of a GitLab group with optional name or username search, and explicitly distinguishes it from the corresponding get tool for single resources. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like list_project_members.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says to use this for a collection of resources and to choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect. It also provides guidance on identifiers and pagination fields, giving clear when-to-use and how-to-use context.

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