Skip to main content
Glama

list_issues

Retrieve GitLab issues by applying filters like project, assignee, labels, state, and search terms to manage project tasks effectively.

Instructions

List issues (default: created by current user only; use scope='all' for all accessible issues)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject ID or URL-encoded path (optional - if not provided, lists issues across all accessible projects)
assignee_idNoReturn issues assigned to the given user ID. user id or none or any
assignee_usernameNoReturn issues assigned to the given username
author_idNoReturn issues created by the given user ID
author_usernameNoReturn issues created by the given username
confidentialNoFilter confidential or public issues
created_afterNoReturn issues created after the given time
created_beforeNoReturn issues created before the given time
due_dateNoReturn issues that have the due date
labelsNoArray of label names
milestoneNoMilestone title
issue_typeNoFilter to a given type of issue. One of issue, incident, test_case or task
iteration_idNoReturn issues assigned to the given iteration ID. None returns issues that do not belong to an iteration. Any returns issues that belong to an iteration.
scopeNoReturn issues from a specific scope
searchNoSearch for specific terms
stateNoReturn issues with a specific state
updated_afterNoReturn issues updated after the given time
updated_beforeNoReturn issues updated before the given time
with_labels_detailsNoReturn more details for each label
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)
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 mentions the default scope behavior, which is useful, but doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like pagination (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like. For a list operation with 21 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loads the core functionality and immediately provides the most critical usage note about default scope. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 (21 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the broader context needed for a tool of this complexity.

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 21 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default scope behavior, which relates to the 'scope' parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('issues'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'my_issues' or 'get_issue', which are related but distinct operations.

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 provides clear context about default behavior (created by current user only) and how to override it (use scope='all'), which helps guide usage. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'my_issues' or 'search_repositories', but the scope guidance is helpful.

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