Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_namespaces

Read-only

Retrieve GitLab namespaces (users and groups) accessible to the current user. Filter by ownership, search term, or kind to target specific groups.

Instructions

List all namespaces (users and groups) available to the current user. Filter by kind='group' for groups only. 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
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
ownedNoFilter for namespaces owned by current user
searchNoSearch term for namespaces
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)

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. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11
  5. Removedv2.1.10
  6. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  7. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so read-only is redundant, but the description adds valuable error semantics: 'missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors.' This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate failure modes. It does not explain openWorldHint, but that's already covered by the annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description is longer than necessary. The sentence about project_id/group_id is boilerplate and not relevant to this schema, and the 'kind' filter sentence is misleading. With some trimming and removal of inaccurate references, it could be much tighter.

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?

For a list tool with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and error behavior. However, the false parameter hints (kind, project_id, group_id) and the lack of any statement about the return shape (list of namespaces) leave the agent with uncertain guidance when calling the tool correctly. The inaccuracies make it less complete than it appears.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces parameters that do not exist in the schema: 'kind', 'project_id', and 'group_id'. This actively misleads the agent into trying non-existent arguments. It adds no clarification for the actual parameters (page, owned, search, jmespath, per_page) beyond their schema descriptions, and the generic closing sentence about identifiers adds no value.

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 description identifies the exact resource and action: 'List all namespaces (users and groups) available to the current user.' It explicitly distinguishes this collection-style tool from a single-resource get tool ('choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect'), making it easy to tell apart from get_namespace and verify_namespace.

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?

The description gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use this for a collection of resources' and when-not: 'choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect.' It also provides a filter hint ('Filter by kind='group' for groups only') to narrow results, which is a clear usage scenario even if the parameter isn't in the schema.

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