Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_merge_request_changed_files

Read-only

List changed file paths in a merge request without diff content. Provide the merge request IID or source branch to get the affected files.

Instructions

List changed file paths in a merge request without diff content (mergeRequestIid or branchName required). 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
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
source_branchNoSource branch name
merge_request_iidNoThe IID of a merge request
excluded_file_patternsNoArray of regex patterns to exclude files. Examples: ["^vendor/", "\.pb\.go$"]

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. Addedv2.1.9

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 the description reinforces it by saying 'does not mutate GitLab data'. It adds behavioral context on error handling (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits), which is valuable beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 with key info front-loaded: purpose and scope first, then usage guidance and error handling. It is a bit dense with multiple clauses but each sentence adds value. It could be split for readability but is not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema) and the strong annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, error behavior, and identifier handling. It does not detail the return format (e.g., array of strings), but with no output schema that might be expected; still, the lack of explicit return description is a minor gap given the tool's simple output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds guidance on using numeric ID or URL-encoded paths for project_id/group_id and mentions pagination fields, which is extra clarity. It also implies which parameters are alternative identifiers (mergeRequestIid or branchName) despite not listing all in the schema. This exceeds the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('changed file paths'), and scope ('in a merge request'), and distinguishes from the 'get' tool by noting it is for a collection of resources. The description also clarifies what it does NOT include ('without diff content'), preventing confusion with diff-related siblings.

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?

Explicitly states the main use case (listing a collection) and contrasts with the 'get' tool for a single resource. It also notes required identifiers and error conditions, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool beyond the sibling distinction.

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