Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_protected_branches

Read-only

Retrieve protected branches for a GitLab project, with optional name search and pagination, to review branch protection rules without modifying data.

Instructions

List protected branches in a project, supports search filter. 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)
searchNoSearch term to filter protected branches by name
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project

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. Addedv2.1.21

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description clearly states the operation is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data, which is useful even though readOnlyHint=true already exists. It goes beyond annotations by describing error behavior for missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits, giving the agent expectations for failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The sentences about read-only behavior and parameter usage are useful, though the group_id reference feels like boilerplate and could be trimmed without losing value.

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 simple list operation, the description covers the main use case, differentiates from the singular get tool, and provides error expectations. It does not describe the return format or explicitly name the sibling get_protected_branch, but given the tool is a straightforward collection listing and there is no output schema, the current level is sufficient.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some reinforcement about numeric ID or URL-encoded paths and pagination usage, but it largely restates what the schema says. The mention of group_id is a slight mismatch because the schema only accepts project_id, so it adds minor confusion but no substantive new meaning.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('List protected branches in a project') and immediately distinguishes itself from the singular get tool by saying to use that when the agent already knows the single resource. The name itself could be ambiguous among siblings like list_branches, but the description resolves it by naming the resource type and search filter.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (for a collection of resources) and when not to ('choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect'). It also instructs to use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented, which is clear operational guidance.

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