gitlab mcp

my_issues

Read-only

List issues assigned to the authenticated GitLab user, with filters for state, labels, project, milestone, search, and dates to manage personal work.

Instructions

List issues assigned to the authenticated user. Use this for issue management. Use list_issues for project-wide listing and get_issue for one issue. Requires classic read_user or fine-grained User:Read.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "my_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number for pagination (default: 1)
`state`	No	Return issues with a specific state (default: opened)
`labels`	No	Array of label names to filter by
`search`	No	Search for specific terms in title and description
`jmespath`	No	Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
`per_page`	No	Number of items per page (default: 20, max: 100)
`milestone`	No	Milestone title to filter by
`project_id`	No	Project ID or URL-encoded path (optional to search across all accessible projects)
`created_after`	No	Return issues created after the given time (ISO 8601)
`updated_after`	No	Return issues updated after the given time (ISO 8601)
`created_before`	No	Return issues created before the given time (ISO 8601)
`updated_before`	No	Return issues updated before the given time (ISO 8601)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66Sep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / jmespath

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.25Jun 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description

Previous value: -"Project ID or URL-encoded path (optional when GITLAB_PROJECT_ID is set)"New value: +"Project ID or URL-encoded path (optional to search across all accessible projects)"

Addedv2.1.18May 30, 2026
Removedv2.1.14May 22, 2026
Addedv2.1.11May 13, 2026
Removedv2.1.10May 9, 2026
Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.9May 9, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.0.0Jan 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful prerequisite — the required classic read_user or fine-grained User:Read scope — which tells the agent an auth failure is possible and why. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination behavior or that results span all accessible projects when project_id is omitted.

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?

Front-loaded with the scoping statement, then alternatives, then auth — a sensible order with no wasted length. The sentence 'Use this for issue management' carries no information and could be cut, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 12-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and auth prerequisites. It is slightly thin on result shape and pagination expectations, but the fully-described schema closes most of that gap.

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 all twelve parameters are already documented in the schema, including pagination, state enum, date filters, and the project_id cross-project note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the baseline-3 case 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'List issues assigned to the authenticated user.' The scope (assigned to me) is exactly what separates it from list_issues and get_issue, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Names both alternatives and the condition that selects each: 'Use `list_issues` for project-wide listing and `get_issue` for one issue.' The one soft sentence, 'Use this for issue management,' is redundant but harmless next to the explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.