search_projectsSearch public GitLab projects by keyword, sorted by popularity. Returns project ID, name, description, star count, fork count, open issues, and web URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (default 10, max 100) | |
| query | Yes | Search query string |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projects | Yes | Array of public GitLab projects matching the search query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already convey behavioral traits extensively. The description adds return field details and sorting behavior but does not disclose additional traits beyond those. With rich annotations, the description's incremental value is modest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output details. No redundant words; every part serves a clear informative purpose. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists). Description adequately covers the search scope (public projects), output fields, and sorting. It lacks mention of pagination or result limits beyond the 'limit' parameter, but the presence of output schema reduces the burden. Mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100%, fully describing the 'query' and 'limit' parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only lists output fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'public GitLab projects', with sorting by popularity and specific return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_issues' (issues) and 'get_project' (specific project details), covering purpose and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description mentions searching public projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_project' for a single project, 'search_issues' for issues). Usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The vast majority of tools are unrelated to GitLab and cover overlapping domains (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several Polymarket tools, memory tools). Only three GitLab-specific tools exist, and they are distinct from each other, but overall the set is highly heterogeneous and ambiguous.
Tool names use a mix of conventions: some are snake_case (ask_pipeworx, search_issues), some are compound nouns (get_project, list_subscriptions), and a few are single words (forget, recall). There is no consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.
Despite the server name 'Gitlab Public', only 3 out of 34 tools are related to GitLab. The remaining 31 tools are a collection of unrelated services (Pipeworx data retrieval, Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility). This is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its tool composition.
For a GitLab public server, essential tools like project creation, deletion, user management, and merge request handling are completely missing. The Pipeworx tools, while numerous, lack a clear cohesive scope and overlap significantly with each other.