Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_projects

Read-only

Retrieve GitLab projects accessible to the current user, with filters for ownership, membership, visibility, search, and pagination for targeted collection browsing.

Instructions

List projects accessible by the current user. 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)
sortNoReturn projects sorted in ascending or descending order
ownedNoFilter for projects owned by current user
topicNoFilter by topic (projects tagged with this topic)
searchNoSearch term for projects
simpleNoReturn only limited fields
archivedNoFilter for archived projects
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
order_byNoReturn projects ordered by field
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)
membershipNoFilter for projects where current user is a member
visibilityNoFilter by project visibility
min_access_levelNoFilter by minimum access level
search_namespacesNoNeeds to be true if search is full path
with_issues_enabledNoFilter projects with issues feature enabled
with_merge_requests_enabledNoFilter projects with merge requests feature enabled

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 / topic
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter by topic (projects tagged with this topic)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  7. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states it is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data, and enumerates error conditions: missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits. While annotations already convey readOnlyHint, the description adds concrete error semantics, which is valuable for an agent deciding how to handle failures.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The core action, scope, usage guidance, safety note, and error behavior are all conveyed efficiently, with the most important information front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete enough for a list tool: it covers scope, read-only behavior, error semantics, and points to the schema for identifiers and pagination. It does not describe the return shape, but given no output schema and the obvious meaning of 'list projects,' the omission is minor.

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 baseline is 3 even without additional parameter details in the description. The description's mention of project_id/group_id and URL-encoded paths is generic and not directly applicable to this tool's actual schema, so it adds little beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'List projects accessible by the current user.' It also distinguishes the collection-oriented purpose from a single-resource get tool, saying to choose the 'corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource.' This makes the tool's intent unambiguous and separates it from siblings like get_project.

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?

It provides clear context: use for a collection of resources, and choose a get tool for a known single resource. It also instructs to use required identifiers and pagination fields as documented. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this over the sibling list_group_projects, so the guidance is good but not fully exhaustive.

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