Skip to main content
Glama

Gitlab

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Gitlab List Issues

gitlab_list_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search issues in a GitLab project by project ID. Returns issue ID, title, state (open/closed), labels, assignee, and URL. Filter by status and labels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoFilter by state: "opened", "closed", or "all" (default: "opened")
searchNoSearch issues by title or description
_apiKeyYesGitLab personal access token
per_pageNoNumber of issues to return (default 20, max 100)
project_idYesProject ID or URL-encoded path

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issuesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "issues": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "assignee": {
+            "description": "Assignee username",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "author": {
+            "description": "Author username",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "created_at": {
+            "description": "Creation timestamp",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "iid": {
+            "description": "Issue internal ID",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "labels": {
+            "description": "Issue labels",
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "description": "Issue state (opened/closed)",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Issue title",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updated_at": {
+            "description": "Last update timestamp",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "description": "Issue web URL",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "iid",
+          "title",
+          "state",
+          "labels",
+          "assignee",
+          "author",
+          "url",
+          "created_at",
+          "updated_at"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "issues"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-gitlab-api-key",
+    "project_id": "123"
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-gitlab-api-key",
+    "per_page": 30,
+    "project_id": "123",
+    "search": "bug",
+    "state": "closed"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds the return fields, which is useful. However, it falsely claims 'Filter by status and labels' while the schema has a 'state' parameter and no 'labels' parameter. This misleading claim contradicts the schema and could cause the agent to pass an invalid 'labels' argument. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent traits, so the description's misleading filter is a significant transparency issue.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields. The structure is efficient and easy to parse, though the content includes the 'labels' inaccuracy. The compactness is good.

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?

With an output schema and strong annotations, the description doesn't need to explain return formats. It is adequate for a simple list tool, but the erroneous 'labels' filter and use of 'status' instead of 'state' create a gap in completeness, leaving the agent uncertain about actual filter options.

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. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it mentions 'project ID' (already required) and repeats filter capabilities, though 'labels' is not a schema parameter. No additional parameter nuances are provided.

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 tool searches issues in a GitLab project by project ID and lists the returned fields (ID, title, state, labels, assignee, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_mrs (merge requests) and gitlab_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: search issues by project ID and filter by status/labels. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool for issue listing.

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

All Gitlab toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded which are near-identical in function. The polymarket_* family also has several members with closely related scopes, and the large number of data-query tools makes it hard to choose the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), others are noun-first (entity_profile, bet_research), and proper-noun prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are used liberally. The gitlab_* tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but the rest of the set is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given that only 5 are GitLab-related while the rest are a sprawling data-access toolkit. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants), and the count exceeds what is reasonable for a focused GitLab server.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Gitlab, the coverage is severely incomplete: only list/get operations exist for projects, issues, and MRs, with no create, update, or delete capabilities. The broader data tools are more complete, but the nominal purpose of the server is clearly not fulfilled.

Resources