Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_project_members

Read-only

Retrieve, search, and filter members of a GitLab project by ID or path, with pagination and inherited member options.

Instructions

List members of a GitLab project. Read-only; missing resources, denied access, and rate limits return errors. project_id/group_id take a numeric ID or URL-encoded path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for pagination (default: 1)
queryNoSearch for members by name or username
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (default: 20, max: 100)
user_idsNoFilter by user IDs
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path
skip_usersNoUser IDs to exclude
include_inheritanceNoInclude inherited members. Defaults to false.

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. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.9
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_inheritance
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Include inherited members. Defaults to false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  7. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: error behavior for missing resources, denied access, and rate limits. Minor flaw: it references `group_id`, which is not a parameter in the schema.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the core action leads. The stray `group_id` reference is a small blemish on otherwise efficient structure.

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 listing tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the needed error-behavior context. It omits pagination behavior and includes a param (group_id) that doesn't exist, but neither blocks correct invocation.

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 already documents all eight parameters. The description's note that project_id takes a numeric ID or URL-encoded path merely restates the schema's own description, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List members of a GitLab project"), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_project or list_projects. It doesn't name a directly competing member-listing alternative, so no sibling routing is provided, keeping it just below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the resource (list the members of a given project), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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