Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

list_issue_links

Retrieve all linked issues for a specific GitLab project issue to understand relationships and dependencies.

Instructions

List all issue links for a specific issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject ID or URL-encoded path
issue_iidNoThe internal ID of a project's issue

Implementation Reference

  • schemas.ts:1365-1368 (schema)
    Input schema definition for the 'list_issue_links' MCP tool, matching GitLab API /projects/:id/issues/:issue_iid/links
    export const ListIssueLinksSchema = z.object({
  project_id: z.coerce.string().describe("Project ID or URL-encoded path"),
  issue_iid: z.coerce.string().describe("The internal ID of a project's issue"),
});
  • schemas.ts:1359-1362 (schema)
    Response schema for individual issue links returned by the tool
    export const GitLabIssueLinkSchema = z.object({
  source_issue: GitLabIssueSchema,
  target_issue: GitLabIssueSchema,
  link_type: z.enum(["relates_to", "blocks", "is_blocked_by"]),
  • schemas.ts:716-721 (schema)
    Extended issue schema with link details, explicitly noted as 'used in listing issue links'
    export const GitLabIssueWithLinkDetailsSchema = GitLabIssueSchema.extend({
  issue_link_id: z.coerce.string(),
  link_type: z.enum(["relates_to", "blocks", "is_blocked_by"]),
  link_created_at: z.string(),
  link_updated_at: z.string(),
});
  • test/readonly-mcp-tests.ts:73-73 (registration)
    Tool listed as required in readonly MCP tests, confirming its registration in the MCP server
    { name: 'list_issue_links', category: 'issue', required: true },

Tool Definition Quality

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('List') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it returns paginated results, or the format of the output. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words or structure, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. With no annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Project ID or URL-encoded path', 'The internal ID of a project's issue'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters relate to each other or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('issue links'), specifying the scope ('for a specific issue'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_issue_link' (singular) and 'list_issues' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 like 'get_issue_link' (which retrieves a single link) or other list tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing issue, or exclusions, like not working for non-existent issues. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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