Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_merge_request_versions

Read-only

Retrieve all versions of a merge request by specifying its project and internal ID. This read-only endpoint returns version history, useful for auditing changes.

Instructions

List all versions of a merge request. 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
merge_request_iidYesThe internal ID of the merge request

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 provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's read-only statement is partially redundant. However, it adds useful behavioral detail by stating that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors, which is 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?

Three sentences front-load the purpose and selection guidance, followed by behavior and parameter notes. It is compact and readable, though the final sentence includes boilerplate that references group_id and pagination fields not present in the schema.

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 operation with fully documented parameters, the description gives enough to select and invoke the tool correctly: purpose, sibling distinction, error behavior, and identifier format. Without an output schema, it doesn't describe exact response shape, but the list nature of the operation makes that reasonably inferable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries most parameter documentation. The description mostly paraphrases project_id and gives a generic 'as documented' instruction without adding substantive meaning. The mention of group_id and pagination fields is slightly inaccurate since neither appears in the schema, preventing a higher score.

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 first sentence names a specific action and resource: 'List all versions of a merge request.' It also distinguishes itself from the single-resource 'get' variant, which separates it from sibling tools like get_merge_request_version.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool for a collection and to choose the corresponding get tool when the single resource is already known. It also covers read-only usage and error conditions, making the selection context clear.

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