Skip to main content
Glama

list_group_projects

Retrieve and filter projects within a GitLab group using criteria like visibility, programming language, or activity status to manage development resources.

Instructions

List projects in a GitLab group with filtering options

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idNoGroup ID or path
include_subgroupsNoInclude projects from subgroups
searchNoSearch term to filter projects
order_byNoField to sort by
sortNoSort direction
archivedNoFilter for archived projects
visibilityNoFilter by project visibility
with_issues_enabledNoFilter projects with issues feature enabled
with_merge_requests_enabledNoFilter projects with merge requests feature enabled
min_access_levelNoFilter by minimum access level
with_programming_languageNoFilter by programming language
starredNoFilter by starred projects
statisticsNoInclude project statistics
with_custom_attributesNoInclude custom attributes
with_security_reportsNoInclude security reports
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)

Implementation Reference

  • Zod input schema definition for the 'list_group_projects' MCP tool. Validates parameters for listing projects within a GitLab group, including group_id (required), pagination, filters like include_subgroups, search, visibility, etc. Uses GitLab API endpoint /groups/{group_id}/projects.
    export const ListGroupProjectsSchema = z
      .object({
        group_id: z.coerce.string().describe("Group ID or path"),
        include_subgroups: z.boolean().optional().describe("Include projects from subgroups"),
        search: z.string().optional().describe("Search term to filter projects"),
        order_by: z
          .enum(["name", "path", "created_at", "updated_at", "last_activity_at"])
          .optional()
          .describe("Field to sort by"),
        sort: z.enum(["asc", "desc"]).optional().describe("Sort direction"),
        archived: z.boolean().optional().describe("Filter for archived projects"),
        visibility: z
          .enum(["public", "internal", "private"])
          .optional()
          .describe("Filter by project visibility"),
        with_issues_enabled: z
          .boolean()
          .optional()
          .describe("Filter projects with issues feature enabled"),
        with_merge_requests_enabled: z
          .boolean()
          .optional()
          .describe("Filter projects with merge requests feature enabled"),
        min_access_level: z.number().optional().describe("Filter by minimum access level"),
        with_programming_language: z.string().optional().describe("Filter by programming language"),
        starred: z.boolean().optional().describe("Filter by starred projects"),
        statistics: z.boolean().optional().describe("Include project statistics"),
        with_custom_attributes: z.boolean().optional().describe("Include custom attributes"),
        with_security_reports: z.boolean().optional().describe("Include security reports"),
      })
      .merge(PaginationOptionsSchema);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't explain key behaviors: whether this is paginated (implied by schema parameters but not stated), what authentication level is needed, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a read operation with 17 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word 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 (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with this many filtering options and no structured output documentation, users need more guidance about what to expect from the operation.

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 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filtering options' generically, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or important constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and target resource ('projects in a GitLab group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions 'with filtering options' which hints at capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_namespaces', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_projects' and 'list_namespaces' available, there's no indication of when this group-specific listing is appropriate versus other listing tools. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zereight/gitlab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server