Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_todos

Read-only

Retrieve current user's GitLab to-do items, filterable by type, state, action, project, or group. Use this read-only tool to view pending or completed tasks.

Instructions

List GitLab to-do items for 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)
typeNoFilter by to-do target type
stateNoFilter by to-do state
actionNoFilter by to-do action
group_idNoFilter by group ID
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
per_pageNoNumber of items per page (max: 100, default: 20)
author_idNoFilter by author ID
project_idNoFilter by project ID

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. 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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds concrete error behavior: missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. This is valuable, non-redundant context beyond the structured annotations.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: operation statement, usage/error snapshot, parameter/identifier guidance. The description is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or redundant restatements.

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?

With no output schema and nine optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, error behavior, and parameter encoding. It does not describe the return shape, but for a list operation this is largely inferable; the missing output details are a minor gap given the solid coverage of invocation concerns.

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% and already documents all parameters, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description's guidance on project_id/group_id says to provide 'the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema' – yet the schema types these as numbers and never mentions URL-encoded paths. This is potentially misleading and could cause an agent to pass a string where a number is expected. The reference to 'required identifiers' is also confusing because no parameters are required.

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?

States the exact operation: 'List GitLab to-do items for the current user.' It clearly identifies the resource (to-do items) and distinguishes from single-resource get tools with the explicit guidance to 'choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect.' This differentiates it from siblings like list_issues or get_issue without ambiguity.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: for a collection of resources, and when to instead use a get tool for a single known resource. It also instructs on identifier handling and pagination field usage, covering the practical conditions under which the tool should be invoked.

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