Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mark_all_todos_done

Mark all pending GitLab to-do items as done for the current user, clearing your task list in one action.

Instructions

Mark all pending GitLab to-do items as done for the current user. Use this for the specific operation described; choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action. It changes remote GitLab state and requires the necessary project or group permission; GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying an invalid request. 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
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.

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. Addedv2.1.18
  5. Removedv2.1.14
  6. Addedv2.1.11
  7. Removedv2.1.10
  8. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description does add useful behavioral context beyond the minimal openWorldHint annotation by stating that it 'changes remote GitLab state,' requires permission, and that GitLab returns validation/conflict/permission/rate-limit errors. However, it also references 'project_id or group_id' and 'pagination fields' that are absent from this tool's schema, which introduces confusion and weakens the disclosure.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence is strong, but the remaining three sentences are padded with generic instructions that could apply to almost any tool in the sibling set. The irrelevant project_id/group_id and pagination guidance should not be present, making the description longer without earning its space.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, mutation, permission requirements, and error behavior. It is adequate, but the misapplied generic text and lack of any mention of the response or distinction from mark_todo_done leave meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema fully documents the only parameter, jmespath, so the description does not need to repeat it. But the only parameter-related guidance it gives mentions 'project_id or group_id,' 'required identifiers,' and 'pagination fields' – none of which exist in this tool's actual schema. This actively misleads rather than adding 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 opens with a precise verb-object-scope statement: 'Mark all pending GitLab to-do items as done for the current user.' This clearly identifies the resource, action, and target, and the word 'all' distinguishes it from the singular sibling mark_todo_done without needing to inspect its schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only guidance is generic boilerplate: 'Use this for the specific operation described; choose a sibling tool when you need a different resource or lifecycle action.' It does not mention the closely related mark_todo_done sibling or explain when to choose one versus the other, so an agent gets no actionable disambiguation.

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