gitlab-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.9
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose and target resource (e.g., specific merge request, pipeline, or project aspects). Overlapping concepts like 'summarize' vs 'get' are differentiated by their descriptions, ensuring an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All 85 tools follow a consistent 'gitlab_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making the set highly predictable. Verbs like get, list, search, find, trace, and summarize are used systematically across resource types.
Tool Count4/5
With 85 tools, the server is on the high side but appropriate for covering GitLab's extensive API surface (projects, groups, users, merge requests, pipelines, CI/CD, releases, packages, etc.). The count is justified by the breadth of the domain, though some tools could be consolidated.
Completeness2/5
The tool set is almost entirely read-only and analytical, lacking essential CRUD operations (e.g., no create_issue, update_merge_request, delete_project) and mutation tools (e.g., merge, run pipeline). This severely limits agents that need to perform actions, leaving significant gaps for a full GitLab interaction.
Average 3.3/5 across 85 of 85 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 30 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 4, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds no behavioral context. It fails to mention pagination, filtering behavior, or any side effects beyond what annotations cover.
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 description is extremely brief (one phrase), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It is underspecified rather than concisely informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent lacks essential information to effectively use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema), and the tool's description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. The agent receives no information about valid values or how parameters affect results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'List' and resource 'project packages', providing basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gitlab_get_package, and is essentially a restatement of the title.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_package, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe and read-only. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting), but the annotations already cover the safety profile adequately.
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 description is extremely short (6 words), but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It lacks information about parameters, return values, or usage context, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and is part of a large sibling set, the description is severely inadequate. It omits critical details like required project_id, search filtering, and pagination behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters (like project_id, search, pagination). It adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer parameter usage from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'list' and resource 'branches in a project repository'. This clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'gitlab_get_branch' or 'gitlab_list_protected_branches', though the name helps.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_branch' and 'gitlab_list_protected_branches' exist but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or response format. With annotations present, the description does not add value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but under-specified given the five parameters. While it wastes no words, it lacks necessary details on parameters and usage. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and annotations only cover safety, the description should at least mention pagination, search, and subgroup inclusion. It does not, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not explain any parameters, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List projects within a group' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (projects within a group). It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_search_projects or gitlab_list_accessible_projects by scoping to a specific group. However, it's slightly tautological with the tool name and lacks detail on scope (e.g., all projects, filtered?).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_search_projects, gitlab_list_accessible_projects). No context on prerequisites or when not to use. The description provides zero usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, recursion behavior). It is not contradictory, but does not enhance the agent's understanding beyond annotations.
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 description is a single 8-word sentence. While front-loaded, it is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters. It does not earn its place as it omits crucial context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, high parameter count, no param descriptions, and no usage guidance. The description leaves significant gaps about what the tool returns and how to use its parameters. It is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain any parameter meaning. For example, 'ref', 'path', 'recursive' are not described, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists files and directories in a GitLab repository tree, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_get_file (single file) or gitlab_search_code (content search), but does not explicitly contrast.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds 'visible' implying access control filtering, but no disclosure of pagination or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it lacks essential details, making it too sparse for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description provides no context for date filtering, event types, pagination, or result format. Given the high sibling count, the agent needs more guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (page, after, action, before, per_page, project_id, target_type). Agent cannot infer parameter meanings from description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Return recent visible project events and activity', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_get_project (settings) and gitlab_summarize_recent_activity (summary). However, 'recent' and 'visible' are slightly vague.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like gitlab_get_project_dashboard or gitlab_summarize_recent_activity. No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or response structure. Since annotations do the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence). While conciseness is generally good, it comes at the cost of informativeness, making it borderline under-specified. A balance should be struck.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling tools (e.g., gitlab_search_issues), the description is woefully incomplete. An agent requires more context about parameter functions, filtering behavior, pagination, and how the output relates to other issue tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 7 parameters, but the description adds no information about any parameter. It does not explain that project_id is required, nor does it describe the purpose of filters like state, labels, search, assignee_id, page, or per_page. This is a critical gap as the agent must rely solely on schema types and enums, which are insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'issues for a GitLab project', which distinguishes it from tools like gitlab_get_issue (single issue) and gitlab_search_issues (search/filter). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings that also list issues for a project, such as gitlab_list_group_issues, which lists issues across groups.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid using it, or how it compares to gitlab_search_issues or other listing tools. The description is too terse to inform usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention pagination, sorting, or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is too minimal; it could include more useful information without being wordy, so it trades conciseness for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 7 parameters with no descriptions, the tool is severely underdescribed. The agent lacks crucial context about filtering, pagination, and return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation of any of the 7 parameters, including the required project_id. It fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 verb 'list', the resource 'merge requests', and the scope 'in a project', distinguishing it from other list tools like gitlab_list_issues.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gitlab_get_merge_request for a single MR or other list tools with different filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or required permissions. The description is redundant with the name and annotations, failing to explain what happens beyond the obvious.
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?
The description is one short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover pagination (page/per_page), filtering options (status, ref, source), or the required project_id. The agent lacks context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the overall description does not explain any parameter meaning. For example, 'ref', 'source', 'status' are left to inference, requiring the agent to guess their usage and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'pipelines for a project', making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools (e.g., gitlab_list_issues) beyond the resource name, missing an opportunity to specify scope like 'of a GitLab project'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include gitlab_get_pipeline (single pipeline) and gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs, but the description does not contrast these or specify that this is for listing pipelines, not a single one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it inspects recent history and identifies oscillating jobs, but does not explain what 'recent' means or what the output looks like. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words. Could benefit from a bit more structure, but remains appropriate for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description, the single-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return format, parameter usage, and examples, leaving significant gaps for correct tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention any of the four parameters (project_id, ref, min_samples, lookback_pipelines). The agent has no guidance on how to set them beyond parameter names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it inspects pipeline history to identify oscillating jobs, which is a specific purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'gitlab_flaky_ci_triage', so it loses a point for sibling distinction.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is implied, there are many pipeline-related siblings (e.g., gitlab_compare_pipeline_runs, gitlab_flaky_ci_triage) and no explicit when/when-not advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the allowlist filtering behavior. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but omits critical parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but is too sparse for a tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not cover pagination, search behavior, or the meaning of min_access_level, leaving the agent to infer or experiment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter (page, search, per_page, min_access_level), leaving the agent without semantic understanding beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List groups accessible to the configured token', specifying the verb and resource. It also mentions filtering by allowlist, adding context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like gitlab_search_groups, which could cause ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_search_groups. The description does not provide context for usage, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that results are based on token permissions and filtered by allowlists/deny lists, which is useful but vague.
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?
A single clear sentence with no redundancy. Efficiently communicates the core action and constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description omits important details like pagination, filtering behavior, and result scope. Incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (page, search, etc.). No value added beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists projects accessible to the token, with filtering from allowlists/deny lists. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_projects' by implying it returns a pre-filtered set, though not explicit.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_projects' or 'list_accessible_groups'. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'for a group and its descendant projects' provides some scope. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, or how results are aggregated across projects. More detail on output behavior would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and very concise, but it sacrifices completeness. It does not cover parameters or usage guidance, so while it is not verbose, it is under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is overly minimal. It omits pagination, filtering, and differentiation from similar tools (e.g., gitlab_list_issues). The description leaves significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., group_id, state, labels, search). The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which has no property descriptions, making it difficult to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues for a group and its descendant projects, specifying the scope (group and descendants) and the action (list). This distinguishes it from project-level issue listing (e.g., gitlab_list_issues) but could be more explicit about what 'issues' entails. The verb 'List' is specific.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_search_issues or gitlab_list_issues. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference siblings. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description does not add behavioral traits beyond that; lacks disclosure on pagination, rate limits, or scoping.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, 12 words, no redundancy. However, it is too minimal and lacks structure; front-loading is fine but brevity sacrifices utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. Description is too sparse to guide an agent effectively; omits search types, pagination, and project scoping details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (project_id, search, page, per_page, search_type), failing to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 code blobs in a project using GitLab Search API, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_search (general) and gitlab_search_issues (issues) by focusing on code blobs.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., gitlab_search, gitlab_search_issues). Does not mention exclusions or context for choosing this search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds search criteria context but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, or output format. Acceptable given annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise, but overly brief given the lack of parameter details and usage guidance. Not wasteful but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but description does not mention what the tool returns (list of groups). Lacks context on pagination, sorting, and result scope. Incomplete for a search tool.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description only explains the 'search' parameter via 'by name or path', but omits 'page' and 'per_page', leaving significant gaps for a search tool with pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'GitLab groups', with qualifiers 'by name or path'. It distinguishes from tools like gitlab_get_group (single group) but does not differentiate from gitlab_search (general search) or gitlab_list_accessible_groups.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_search or gitlab_list_accessible_groups. Missing when-not and context for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it searches by name or path, but it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence, but it is overly brief given the tool's complexity. It lacks necessary detail while being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover pagination, filtering options, or what the returned data looks like.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at the 'search' parameter ('by name or path'), leaving page, per_page, simple, archived, and membership unexplained. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches GitLab projects by name or path, specifying both verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like gitlab_search (general search) or gitlab_list_accessible_projects (list without search).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_search or gitlab_list_accessible_projects. The agent must infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., result format, pagination, performance).
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action. Could expand slightly without losing conciseness, but currently efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, description is too minimal. Lacks return value explanation, parameter details, and usage scenarios.
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 has 0% description coverage; description mentions resources but does not explain parameter semantics (e.g., 'from', 'to', 'straight', 'unidiff'). Fails to add meaning beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly specifies 'Compare' as verb and identifies resources: branches, tags, commits within a project. Distinguishes from siblings like pipeline-specific comparisons.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_get_commit_diff, gitlab_compare_pipeline_runs). Missing context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, default page size). With rich annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it does not add but also does not contradict.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could include more information (e.g., parameter hints) without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the returned data (list of rule objects), pagination behavior, or how approval rules differ from configuration. More detail is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain the parameters (project_id, page, per_page), other than implying project_id identifies the project via the phrase 'project-level'. This is inadequate for agent usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List project-level merge request approval rules' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project_approval_configuration or gitlab_get_merge_request_approval_rules, which could cause confusion.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like gitlab_get_project_approval_configuration, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the important detail that it returns effective members including inherited ones. However, it does not disclose pagination, sorting, error behavior, or whether the response includes all fields, which would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence. While the main action is stated, the brevity leaves out essential usage context. It is front-loaded with the key action, but the single sentence fails to earn its place by omitting parameter and output details that an agent would need.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no usage notes, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain pagination, query filtering, or the structure of returned data. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning none of the four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not mention any parameter meanings, usage, or constraints (e.g., page, per_page, query). This forces the AI to infer semantics from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists group members and specifies it includes inherited members. This verb+resource with a key detail distinguishes it from project member tools among siblings. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., 'all members with access to the group').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, gitlab_get_project_members serves a different resource, but no direct comparator for group members exists. The description implies its use for group member listing but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context (e.g., pagination, sorting, rate limits). It does not contradict annotations. No additional value beyond annotations.
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?
One short sentence with no fluff, achieving efficiency. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain search behavior, pagination, state filtering, or return format. While annotations cover read-only safety, the description misses key contextual details.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'title and description matching,' which loosely relates to the 'in' parameter. It fails to explain other parameters (project_id, search, page, per_page, state) that are not self-explanatory from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (search), resource (issues), scope (in a project), and method (title and description matching). It distinguishes from siblings like list_issues and find_security_related_issues. However, it does not explicitly mention the ability to filter by title, description, or both via the 'in' parameter, which introduces slight ambiguity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like list_issues (which lists issues without search) or find_security_related_issues (specialized search). The description only states functionality, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the filtering condition (detailed_merge_status), which is not obvious from annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or response format.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise but could be slightly expanded to include parameter usage or output hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the return value (list of MR objects? counts?), nor does it provide parameter details or examples. This leaves an agent without crucial context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The 2 parameters (project_id, per_page) are left completely undocumented, forcing the agent to infer meaning from names alone.
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 that the tool finds open merge requests with a specific 'detailed_merge_status' indicating a blocker, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_list_merge_requests (lists all MRs) and gitlab_find_stale_merge_requests (finds stale MRs).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe reads. The description adds 'recent failed pipelines' but does not define 'recent' or clarify sorting/pagination behavior. It provides minimal additional context beyond the annotations.
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 description is a single sentence, which is concise but underspecified. It lacks needed details about parameters and behavior, making it insufficiently informative for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simple requirements (3 params, no output schema), the description fails to explain what 'recent' means, how results are ordered, or how to use parameters effectively. Annotations help but do not compensate for missing param documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema has no descriptions for the three parameters. The description does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent to guess that 'project_id' is required, 'ref' filters by branch/tag, and 'per_page' limits results. This is a critical gap.
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 verb 'find', the resource 'recent failed pipelines', and the scope 'for a project'. This distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_list_pipelines (lists all pipelines) and gitlab_get_pipeline_failed_jobs_summary (focuses on failed jobs within a pipeline).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding recent failures but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like gitlab_list_pipelines or gitlab_get_pipeline_failed_jobs_summary. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it combines pipeline history, job oscillation, comparisons, and commit/MR context, but does not disclose potential rate limits, data size implications, or full behavior beyond what annotations suggest.
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?
The description is a single sentence that effectively front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient but could be improved by structuring into bullet points or adding brief parameter guidance without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (combining multiple analyses, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain output format semantics, how min_samples or lookback_pipelines affect results, or typical use cases, leaving gaps for an agent to choose correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides only names and types without descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameter meaning, usage, or constraints beyond what the schema (e.g., default values, enums) implicitly shows.
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's purpose: 'Assess whether recent CI failures look flaky' using multiple data sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_find_flaky_jobs or gitlab_compare_pipeline_runs, which focus on specific aspects.
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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions combining various sources but lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral burden is low. The description adds no extra context beyond the annotations, but it does not contradict them. It omits details like pagination behavior or default sorting, which would be helpful.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded, clearly stating the action and resource. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return structure, pagination, or filter options. An agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain any of the 6 parameters. It doesn't mention that project_id and pipeline_id are required, nor provide meaning for 'scope' (e.g., filter values like 'failed', 'running') or other parameters. The description adds no value over the schema.
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 action ('List'), the resource ('jobs'), and the scope ('for a specific pipeline'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_pipeline (which gets pipeline info) and gitlab_get_job (single job).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, filtering constraints, or comparison with related tools such as gitlab_get_pipeline_failed_jobs_summary or gitlab_trace_job_to_commit_and_merge_request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's lack of behavioral detail is acceptable. However, it does not mention pagination behavior which is implied by the page/per_page parameters.
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?
Extremely concise at 6 words, but lacks critical details about parameters and usage. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose but sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no explanation of pagination or the list result. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain that project_id is required or that page/per_page control pagination, leaving the agent without necessary context.
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 action (list) and resource (releases) scoped to a project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_release which targets a single release.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_release for a specific release. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it generates a digest, which is consistent. However, it does not elaborate on behavioral aspects like data freshness or pagination. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
One sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints, but it is not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return format. It mentions 'chat-ready summary' but lacks detail on structure or content. With 6 parameters (2 required) and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides no explanation for the 6 parameters (days, per_page, scope_type, scope_id, output_format, project_sample_limit). This is a critical gap for correct invocation.
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 generates a project or group delivery digest with health signals, blockers, and a chat-ready summary. It distinguishes from siblings like get_group_delivery_overview by adding 'health signals' and 'chat-ready summary'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., gitlab_get_group_delivery_overview or gitlab_summarize_project_status). The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing it over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, date filtering, or return format). With annotations covering safety, the description meets but does not exceed the baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly terse. Conciseness should balance brevity with informativeness; here, the sentence is too minimal to be helpful. A longer description with essential parameter details would be more valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on pagination (page, per_page), date filtering (since, until), path filtering, and branch selection (ref_name). The agent cannot understand the tool's capabilities from this description alone.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (project_id, page, per_page, since, until, ref_name, path). A tool with multiple filtering parameters requires the description to add meaning beyond the schema, but it fails to do so. The agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'repository commits', with the scope 'for a project'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_commit' (single commit) and 'gitlab_get_commit_diff' (diff), as well as code search tools.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about use cases. The agent receives no help in choosing between this and similar commit-related tools like 'gitlab_get_commit' or 'gitlab_search_code'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations clearly mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's lack of additional detail is acceptable but not improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks essential details, making it borderline acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits pagination, sorting, search, and ordering context that are critical for correct usage.
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 input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone, which may be insufficient (e.g., 'sort' vs 'order_by').
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 verb 'List', the resource 'tags', and the scope 'in a project repository'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_list_branches or gitlab_list_issues.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no information about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds 'at a specific ref' but no extra behavioral details like pagination or output format. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal context.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the return format (e.g., list of lines with commit, author, date). A retrieval tool should state what the blame information contains. The description is incomplete for the agent to understand the output.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains no parameters; the meaning of 'ref' (default HEAD) is implicit. Parameter names are clear, but without any elaboration, the description fails to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve blame information for a file at a specific ref.' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from related tools like 'gitlab_get_file' (which gets file content) and commit tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving blame data at a specific ref, but provides no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it uses aggregation and sampling, indicating not all data is returned, which is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Aggregate', but given 7 parameters, it is too concise and lacks structure like bullet points or parameter breakdown.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the return format or structure of the aggregated overview. It only mentions using a single GraphQL query, leaving the agent guessing about the output.
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 description mentions 'sampled projects, open merge requests, open issues' corresponding to project_limit, merge_request_limit, issue_limit, but ignores assignee_limit, output_format, and project_nested_limit. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover more parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it aggregates a group-level delivery overview with sampled projects, open MRs, and open issues via a single GraphQL query. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like portfolio_delivery_overview or team_delivery_digest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a quick group overview with sampling is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already cover safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond listing commits. No contradictions.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity, the description lacks details on pagination, output format, or ordering. With no output schema, the agent is left uninformed about the response.
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 0%, and the description does not clarify parameter semantics (e.g., 'project_id' may be ID or path, 'merge_request_iid' is not defined). Parameter names are self-explanatory but incomplete.
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 verb 'list' and the resource 'commits that are part of a merge request', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_commit (single commit) or gitlab_get_merge_request_changes (diff stats).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_get_merge_request_changes for file changes). No context on prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it retrieves a single package, but does not disclose error handling or authorization needs. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enriched.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence, front-loading the verb and resource. No redundancy, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks return value information (no output schema) and parameter descriptions. For a retrieval tool, it should mention what is returned or that the package details are provided.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'project_id' or 'package_id' beyond their presence in the schema. The description should clarify their meaning or format.
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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'a single package from a project package registry', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'gitlab_list_packages' which lists packages.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_list_packages). It does not specify required parameters or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it uses a single GraphQL query, which is a performance trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like data freshness, pagination handling, or error conditions. With annotations carrying most behavioral information, the description provides marginal additional context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, but could benefit from a brief structure separating what it returns from parameter hints. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not describe the return format or structure. It only says 'aggregate a project dashboard' without clarifying what fields or how results are organized. This leaves significant gaps for an agent understanding the tool's full capability.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (project_id, issue_limit, etc.), the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format or constraints for project_id or the effect of limit parameters.
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 aggregates project dashboard data including open merge requests, open issues, recent pipelines, and attention highlights. The verb 'Aggregate' and listing of specific data types distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_issues' or '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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related tools (e.g., gitlab_list_issues, gitlab_list_merge_requests, gitlab_list_pipelines), but the description does not explain what scenario justifies using an aggregate tool over fetching individual lists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by stating it 'List' protected branch rules, confirming a read-only operation. However, it does not add any behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey, such as pagination or rate limits.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence front-loading the main purpose. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary details. It is optimally concise for its role.
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?
While annotations cover safety, the description does not mention pagination (despite the existence of page/per_page parameters and openWorldHint) or the return format. For a simple list tool, this is an adequate but incomplete description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (project_id, page, per_page). The agent must infer their meaning solely from names. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage, resulting in poor parameter semantics.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'protected branch rules' with the context 'configured for a project.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_branch_protection', which focuses on a single branch's protection rules instead of listing all rules.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gitlab_get_branch_protection' or other listing tools. The description implies its usage context (projects) but fails to provide any exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds that the summary covers events, issues, merge requests, and pipelines, which is useful but does not explain the aggregation method, return format, or potential performance implications. This level of detail is adequate given strong annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the verb. However, it is slightly under-specified, leaving out useful details that could be added without significant bloat. Still, it avoids fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and the tool's summarizing purpose, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the format of the summary, how to interpret results, or whether it uses AI. Among many sibling tools, more context is needed to avoid confusion.
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 description does not explicitly explain the parameters (project_id and days) beyond implying 'recent' from the name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate. The connection between 'recent' and the days parameter is weak and requires inference.
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 summarizes recent events, issues, merge requests, and pipelines for a project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project_activity which lists raw data rather than summarizing multiple types. The specific verb 'summarize' and the listed resource types make the purpose unambiguous.
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 description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over gitlab_get_project_activity, gitlab_summarize_project_status, or other siblings. No when-not or context-specific advice is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail of including trace tails for failed jobs, but does not elaborate on other behaviors like handling of pagination, limits, or empty results.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it is slightly too terse to cover all necessary context for effective use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity (tracing MR to pipelines to jobs), but the description omits details about the return structure and how parameters influence it. With no output schema, more completeness is required.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It only implies that project_id and merge_request_iid are needed, but does not describe pipeline_limit or trace_tail_lines, nor their significance in controlling the output.
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 action (trace) and the resource (merge request to pipelines and failed jobs), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like listing pipelines or explaining a single pipeline.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as gitlab_get_merge_request_pipelines combined with gitlab_get_job_trace. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this composite tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the main behavioral traits. The description adds the stale condition but no additional behavioral context, so it is adequate but not enhanced.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what constitutes 'stale' (related to 'stale_after_days') or how other parameters like 'include_drafts' or 'per_page' affect results, leaving significant gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage; the description does not explain any parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names and constraints alone. This does not add value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('open merge requests') with a clear condition ('not been updated recently'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'gitlab_list_merge_requests' or 'gitlab_find_blocked_merge_requests'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for stale merge requests but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'gitlab_list_merge_requests'), nor does it mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or what metadata is returned). Adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise (5 words, one sentence). No wasted words, but could include more useful details without becoming verbose.
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?
Simple tool with annotations covering safety. No output schema, so description should set expectations about returned metadata, but it does not. Adequate for a basic get operation but incomplete.
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 has 0% description coverage. Description does not explain purpose or constraints of 'project_id' and 'branch' parameters beyond their names. Agent needs additional context for correct usage.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'metadata for a single branch'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_branches' (list all branches) and 'gitlab_get_branch_protection' (get protection details).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention that it retrieves a single branch (as opposed to listing) or any context for its optimal use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). It is adequate but does not augment the 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?
The description is a single sentence that is highly concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or wasted text.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is minimal. It omits typical commit fields returned (e.g., author, message, date), which an agent might need to anticipate the response. It is adequate but could be more informative.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add parameter context. It explains that the 'sha' parameter can accept a SHA, branch, or tag reference, which is helpful. However, it does not explain 'stats' or 'project_id'. This adds partial value but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'a specific commit', and specifies the means by SHA, branch, or tag reference. This distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_commits (plural) and gitlab_get_commit_diff. However, the input schema only has a 'sha' parameter, which is somewhat inconsistent with the mention of branch or tag, creating slight ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_commits, gitlab_get_commit_diff, or other retrieval tools. The description lacks context about use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, but also does not contradict annotations.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded and efficient. However, it is minimal and could include more helpful context without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the basic purpose but omits what the return value contains or any additional context.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'by IID,' failing to explain the required project_id parameter or provide additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource 'a single merge request by IID.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gitlab_list_merge_requests, which lists multiple MRs.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when needing a single specific MR vs listing all MRs. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, making the tool's safety profile clear. Description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, rate limits, meaning of 'effective'). With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. Missing some detail but concise and to the point.
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 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits pagination info and parameter purposes. However, annotations cover safety. Complete enough for basic use but lacks depth for complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does not mention project_id, merge_request_iid (both required) or pagination params (page, per_page). No parameter info is added beyond the schema itself.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'list', resource 'effective approval rules', and context 'to a merge request'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_project_approval_rules' (project-level) and 'gitlab_get_merge_request' (general MR details).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage context (when you need approval rules for a specific MR) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives like project-level approval rules or other MR queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the use of the legacy changes endpoint for overflow metadata, which is useful beyond the 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?
The description is concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds relevant context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'change metadata' includes, nor does it address parameter usage or output details, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the parameters (project_id, merge_request_iid, unidiff, access_raw_diffs). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves merge request change metadata and changed files. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request_diff, which may also provide change-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions using the legacy endpoint for overflow metadata, implying a use case, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other merge request tools (e.g., gitlab_get_merge_request_diff) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds only that it's a GraphQL-backed aggregate query, which provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond the 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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the parameters (e.g., limits, output format) or what the return value looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, the description does not mention any parameters (e.g., label_limit, output_format) or their purpose, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the schema's structural definitions.
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's purpose: to summarize merge request review readiness, approvals, discussions, reviewers, and head pipeline state. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects like discussions or approvals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (for a consolidated review state summary) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. While the sibling list shows many related tools, no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's job is reduced. However, it adds no extra behavioral context like the output format or any rate limits, which would be helpful. No contradictions with 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value, stating the purpose directly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and a single parameter, the description should specify the return format (e.g., a map of language to percentage) to fully inform the agent. It lacks this detail, making it incomplete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should elaborate on the 'project_id' parameter. It only mentions 'project repository' but does not explain what a project_id is or how to find it, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name.
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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'language breakdown for a project repository', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that deal with other project aspects.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as recommending it for language statistics retrieval, or when not to use it (e.g., for other project data). No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by clarifying that 'effective' members include inherited group memberships, a behavioral trait not captured in annotations. No contradiction found.
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?
Single sentence, direct and front-loaded. No extraneous words. Efficiently communicates core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Missing important context: what 'effective' means beyond inheritance, what the response contains (given no output schema), and pagination behavior. For a list tool with 4 parameters, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description provides no parameter information. Parameters like project_id, page, query, per_page are left undefined. The agent must rely solely on property names, which is insufficient for correct use.
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?
Description clearly states 'List effective project members, including inherited group memberships'. Verb (list) and resource (project members) are specific. Qualifiers 'effective' and 'including inherited' distinguish from sibling tools like list_group_members or list_accessible_projects.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_group_members). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations by stating 'pending publication', indicating these are unpublished drafts. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (8 words), but lacks detail on parameters and usage. Could be improved by adding brief parameter info without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite simple tool purpose, missing parameter explanations and output description makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without schema inspection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (project_id, merge_request_iid, page, per_page). This is a critical gap.
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?
Clearly states action (list) and resource (draft notes for a merge request). Distinguishes from sibling gitlab_get_draft_note which retrieves a single note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage context (pending publication), but does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it 'highlights differences', which is a natural consequence of comparing. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or output format behavior beyond the schema, so the added value is minimal.
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?
The description is a single 12-word sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is perhaps overly brief for a tool with multiple parameters, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, one optional enum) and lack of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., what 'structured' or 'markdown' outputs look like) or the meaning of 'added, removed, changed jobs' in detail. Contextual completeness is low.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. The parameter names (project_id, left_pipeline_id, right_pipeline_id, output_format) are self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify the meaning of output_format values ('structured' vs 'markdown') or any constraints beyond those in the schema. This is a significant gap for a tool with four parameters.
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?
Description clearly specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'pipeline runs', and states the output scope ('added, removed, or changed jobs'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools that retrieve single pipelines (gitlab_get_pipeline) or list pipelines (gitlab_list_pipelines).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for comparing two specific pipeline runs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_compare_refs or gitlab_get_merge_request_pipelines. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'simple keyword search heuristics' but doesn't elaborate on specifics or limitations. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, concise, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary text.
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?
The description leaves gaps: no indication of return format, pagination, or the scope of keyword heuristics. For a search tool, more detail would be beneficial, but annotations cover safety aspects.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implies that 'keywords' are used for search over titles/descriptions. It does not explain project_id or provide format/constraints for keywords.
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 'Find potentially security-related issues using simple keyword search heuristics over titles and descriptions.' This specifies the action, resource, and method, distinguishing it from siblings like general issue search or listing.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_search_issues or gitlab_list_issues. It does not mention scenarios where keyword heuristics are preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by mentioning 'diff-size guardrails,' which alerts the agent to potential truncation or limits—a behavioral trait not captured by annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence, succinct and front-loaded with the core action. However, it lacks structure (e.g., separate sections for when to use, parameters) and does not earn its place by also covering parameter details, which would improve clarity without much additional length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits parameter explanations, return value format, error states, and edge cases like truncated diffs. The 'diff-size guardrails' hint is helpful but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (sha, project_id, unidiff). The schema provides only field names and types, so the description fails to add meaning or usage context for parameters.
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 'Retrieve the diff for a specific commit' with a verb and a specific resource. It also mentions 'diff-size guardrails,' which adds useful nuance and helps distinguish this from sibling tools like gitlab_get_commit (metadata) or gitlab_get_merge_request_diff (MR diff).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies usage for specific commit diffs but does not mention alternatives like gitlab_get_merge_request_diff or conditions like large diffs being truncated. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'retrieve', but no contradiction.
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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words.
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 retrieval tool, description is brief but lacks mention of return value or any supplementary context. No output schema, so description should clarify what is returned.
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 0% and description provides no parameter information. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but description could clarify format or constraints.
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?
Description states 'Retrieve a single draft note from a merge request', which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguished from sibling gitlab_list_draft_notes by specifying 'single' vs list.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like gitlab_list_draft_notes or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) already cover safety and idempotency. The description adds that it lists diffs, confirming read-only behavior. No contradictions. Slight gap: does not mention pagination, but acceptable given annotation coverage.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no filler words. Efficient and to the point.
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 no output schema and missing parameter descriptions, the description is minimal. However, given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, it is marginally adequate but not fully complete for agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (project_id, merge_request_iid, page, per_page). The agent has no semantic guidance for parameter usage beyond names and types.
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 'List the file diffs for a merge request' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('file diffs') with clear context ('for a merge request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_merge_request' or 'gitlab_get_merge_request_changes'.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to prefer it over 'gitlab_get_merge_request_changes' or 'gitlab_get_merge_request_commits'. No context or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination details or ordering.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, the description could explain return format or pagination. It does not. The openWorldHint suggests pagination, but the description does not confirm or elaborate. Completeness is adequate for a basic list but lacks detail.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. While parameter names like project_id and merge_request_iid are somewhat clear, page and per_page are not explained, and no default values are given.
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 action 'List' and the resource 'pipelines associated with a merge request', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_list_pipelines that list all pipelines for a project.
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 description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_list_pipelines or gitlab_trace_merge_request_to_pipeline_failures. No context, exclusions, or scenarios are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral detail beyond stating it's a retrieval, which is consistent but not additive. No contradictions found.
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?
Extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
The description is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, but lacks details about what the configuration contains, which could affect selection and usage understanding.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the project_id parameter beyond what the schema provides. While the parameter is straightforward, the description adds no semantic value or constraints.
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 specifies the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'project-level merge request approval configuration', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project_approval_rules which focus on rules rather than configuration.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as gitlab_get_project_approval_rules and gitlab_get_merge_request_approval_rules exist, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts or mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns statistics, which is a subtle behavioral detail not captured by the annotations. However, it does not explain any data retrieval specifics or potential limitations.
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?
The description is a single, precise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and a single parameter, the description provides minimal context. It mentions repository and storage statistics but omits details about the response structure or any other behavioral notes that would help the agent interpret results.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the single parameter (project_id). It does not, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from the parameter name and type. This is inadequate compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
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 returns repository and storage statistics for a project. This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project (general project info) and gitlab_get_project_activity (activity data).
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, ensuring the agent knows it is safe. The description adds that it combines multiple signals, which is behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence (20 words) that front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized, though additional structured details could improve usability without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (combining multiple signals) and five parameters but no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain parameter usage, output format, or edge cases, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and constraints from the schema. This is a critical gap for a tool with five parameters, including defaults and enums.
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 verb 'assess' and the resource 'project readiness', and specifies the combined signals (pipeline, merge request, issue, release comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual signals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual signal tools (e.g., gitlab_get_pipeline, gitlab_list_issues). While the purpose implies a readiness assessment, no usage context or exclusions are provided, which is a gap given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations strongly indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the inputs (branch protections and approval config) but does not describe output format, return behavior, or error handling. Since annotations already cover behavioral safety, the description provides moderate additional value without contradiction.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence of 16 words. Every word is necessary, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and only two parameters, the description should specify what the tool returns (e.g., a risk level string) and provide parameter semantics. It lacks both, leaving the agent unsure of the outcome and how to provide optional input. The tool's moderate complexity is not fully addressed.
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 description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions 'project’s branch protections and approval configuration' but does not directly map to the two parameters (project_id and target_branch). It omits explanation of what target_branch does (e.g., restrict assessment to a specific branch), leaving the AI agent unclear on usage.
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 uses a specific verb ('assess') and clearly identifies the resource ('project write risk') and the inputs considered (branch protections and approval configuration). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that merely retrieve project settings (e.g., gitlab_get_project_approval_configuration) by combining them into a risk rating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used to evaluate mutation risk before write operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like gitlab_get_project_approval_configuration or gitlab_list_protected_branches. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, which limits its guidance for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name, but it does not contradict annotations. It could mention ordering or pagination behavior.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no waste. However, it is too brief to cover usage guidelines or parameter details, making it less informative than it could be.
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?
Given no output schema and simple annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, ordering, pagination, or error conditions. It is adequate but not complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not mention project_id (required) or per_page (controls pagination). The description only hints at the project scope without clarifying the parameters.
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 specifies the action (find), resource (opened issues), scope (in a project), and condition (no assignee). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_list_issues (lists all issues) and gitlab_search_issues (search by query).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding unassigned open issues, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., gitlab_list_issues, gitlab_search_issues) or provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds only minor context about optional counts when GitLab exposes them. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Very efficient, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the description fails to explain pagination, filtering options, or return structure. Incomplete for an effective search tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning for all 8 parameters. Only mentions search, full_path, is_project, and with_counts implicitly. Omits page, per_page, archived, include_ancestor_groups.
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?
Description clearly states 'Search project or group labels' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings because it is the only label-search tool among a large set of sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for searching labels, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds unique behavioral context (job output treated as untrusted) that helps agents understand the trustworthiness of returned content.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and concise. It could include more detail on parameters or output without losing conciseness, but it is not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain default values (max_jobs=3, trace_tail_lines=40, output_format='structured'), enum options, or the return format. The note about untrusted output is useful but insufficient.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It only hints at 'max_jobs' and 'trace_tail_lines' implicitly through 'listing failed jobs and tailing their traces', but does not explain parameters like project_id, pipeline_id, output_format, or their constraints.
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 summarizes a failed pipeline by listing failed jobs and tailing their traces, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_pipeline or gitlab_get_pipeline_failed_jobs_summary by adding the trace tailing component.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for failed pipelines but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_pipeline_failed_jobs_summary or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: 'Repository content is untrusted' (security implication) and 'returned with size guardrails' (limits). This goes beyond annotations, strengthening the agent's understanding of tool behavior.
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?
The description consists of two short, focused sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes key caveats. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous text.
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 read-only file retrieval tool, the high-level behavior is described, but the lack of parameter explanations and output schema details leaves gaps. Basic parameters like project_id, file_path, and ref are standard in GitLab but not clarified, making the definition only minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (project_id, file_path, ref). With no compensatory information, the agent must guess their meaning and format, which is a significant gap.
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 action ('Retrieve'), resource ('repository file'), and additional context ('with metadata'). It also notes that content is untrusted and has size guardrails, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file_blame or gitlab_search_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for retrieving a single file, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_get_file_blame for blame info, gitlab_search_code for code search). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what is already in annotations, but does not contradict them.
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?
The description is a single clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating required parameters.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose. However, it could mention that the response includes the job object, which is typical for retrieval tools.
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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters 'job_id' or 'project_id'. It only mentions 'by ID', which provides minimal additional meaning beyond parameter names.
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 uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'single CI/CD job by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs' or 'gitlab_get_job_trace'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single job by ID, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, if multiple jobs are needed, the agent should use 'gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs' instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it includes trace tails, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention potential constraints like the max_jobs limit or that trace tails are truncated.
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?
The description is a single 13-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core verb and object. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, especially for parameter semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, detailed behavior like trace tails), the description is too brief. It does not cover parameter control, return format, or edge cases, leaving the agent underinformed for invocation.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to explain parameters. The description only mentions 'stages, failure reasons, and short trace tails' but fails to elaborate on parameters like max_jobs, trace_tail_lines, or include_trace_tail. Despite self-explanatory names, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema.
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's function: summarizing failed jobs in a pipeline, including stages, failure reasons, and trace tails. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_get_pipeline or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a summary of failed jobs is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like gitlab_explain_failed_pipeline or gitlab_list_pipeline_jobs. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond restating the read-only operation. No contradiction with 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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and key information. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.
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?
The tool is a simple read operation, but the lack of parameter descriptions means incomplete guidance. Output schema is absent, but for a retrieval tool, return type is partially inferable. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning neither field (project_id, tag_name) has a schema description. The tool description does not elaborate on what project_id or tag_name should be, leaving agents to infer their meaning. This is a significant gap.
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 action (Retrieve), the resource (a single project release), and the key parameter (by tag name). It distinguishes from sibling gitlab_list_releases, which returns multiple releases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for fetching a known release by tag, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus siblings like gitlab_list_releases or gitlab_get_project. No alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail about secret value redaction unless a specific environment variable is set, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions with 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?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and every word adds value. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 list tool, the description covers the main function and a special behavior, but it does not mention that the response is a list or provide any details about the output structure. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete about return format or pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters (project_id, page, per_page). Since the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, the parameter semantics are severely lacking.
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 lists CI/CD variables for a project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources like issues or merge requests. The specific verb 'List' and resource 'CI/CD variables' make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since there are no sibling tools for variables, the usage context is implicitly clear. A score of 3 reflects the lack of explicit usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by listing the heuristics used (merge status, diff volume, pipeline state, changed-file), which provides additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core function efficiently and is appropriately front-loaded.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and useful annotations, the description covers the purpose and heuristics but omits details on output format or error handling. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand return values or edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters beyond what the schema provisions. The parameters project_id, merge_request_iid, and output_format lack any semantic elaboration, so the description adds no value for parameter understanding.
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 verb 'assess' and the resource 'merge request risk', listing specific heuristics (merge status, diff volume, pipeline state, changed-file) that distinguish it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request or gitlab_release_readiness_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for risk assessment but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_merge_request_changes or gitlab_get_merge_request_pipelines. There are no stated exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only 'debugging context', which adds minimal behavioral insight beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
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?
The description covers the main tracing task but omits details about the output (e.g., the difference between 'structured' and 'markdown' formats) and does not mention that multiple merge requests may be returned. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.
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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (job_id, project_id, output_format). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the agent gets no help on formatting or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses specific verb 'Trace' and clearly identifies resources: 'CI job to its commit, pipeline, and associated merge requests'. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tracing tools like gitlab_trace_issue_to_merge_requests or gitlab_trace_merge_request_to_pipeline_failures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'for debugging context' which implies usage scenario, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_get_job_trace, gitlab_get_merge_request), nor does it state prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the detail about accepting both ID and full path, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the core purpose and key parameter format. The front-loading is effective.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read operation. However, it could be improved by briefly noting typical response fields (e.g., includes group name, visibility) or that it returns a single group object. The lack of this information makes it slightly incomplete for ideal decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description's mention of 'by ID or full path' significantly clarifies the meaning of the group_id parameter, indicating it can be either a numeric ID or a string path. This compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('a single GitLab group') along with the lookup methods ('by ID or full path'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools that list or search groups.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_get_group_delivery_overview or gitlab_list_accessible_groups. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Retrieve', which aligns with annotations. No contradiction found, but no extra transparency added.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value: verb, noun, identifier, scope.
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 simple retrieval tool with good annotations, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the key inputs and action. It could optionally mention that the response includes full issue details, but the tool name and action imply that.
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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only mentions 'by IID' but does not define what an IID is or clarify the project_id parameter. Both required parameters lack any semantic enrichment.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource ('single issue') with a clear identifier ('by IID') and scope ('from a project'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues and search_issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific issue IID and project ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion conditions or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description 'Retrieve' is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Single concise sentence with no extraneous information, efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.
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 simple get operation with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is adequate, though it could hint at the return format or how to specify the project (ID vs path).
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 0% (no param descriptions in schema), and the description does not explain the required 'project_id' parameter (e.g., format or examples), failing to compensate.
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?
Clearly states 'Retrieve detailed metadata for a single GitLab project', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that list or search projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for retrieving a single project's details, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like list or search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which align with the description. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output is a summary of 'delivery health' and 'top risk hotspots,' which is beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It fails to explain aggregation logic, what 'risk hotspots' means, output format details, or how parameters affect behavior. More context is needed for effective use.
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 description coverage is 0%. The description implicitly explains scope_type and project_ids by mentioning 'group or an explicit set of projects,' but it does not explain other parameters such as per_page, output_format, project_limit, pipeline_limit, or stale_after_days. This is insufficient for a tool with 8 parameters.
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's purpose using specific verbs and resources: 'Summarize delivery health across a group or an explicit set of projects and highlight the top risk hotspots.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on aggregation and risk spotlight.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the scope types (group or projects) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_get_group_delivery_overview or gitlab_summarize_project_status. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool makes recommendations (merge, rebase, etc.). No contradictions. Since annotations cover safety, the description adds value beyond them.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 15 words. It is concise but lacks structure or additional details. Could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.
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?
The description is thin given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions). No output schema, so return format is unclear. The parameter output_format provides a hint but is not explained. Missing details about scope of triage and depth of recommendations.
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 input schema has 6 parameters but 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameter. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and schema constraints (defaults, enums, ranges), which is insufficient for proper usage.
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 'Triage stale merge requests and recommend whether they should be merged, rebased, reassigned, commented on, or closed' is clear and specific. It uses a verb (triage, recommend) and resource (stale merge requests). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'gitlab_find_stale_merge_requests' by adding the recommendation aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for cleaning up stale MRs, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. Context of use is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating that tool 'samples' the tree and identifies 'dominant file types' and 'likely entry files', implying a heuristic or sampling approach. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing key aspects) without increasing length.
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?
Given no output schema and 6 parameters, the description provides adequate high-level context but lacks detail on parameter behavior and return values. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention any of the six parameters (e.g., recursive, max_entries, output_format). The description's mention of 'sampling' and 'entry files' hint at output_format but falls short of providing meaningful parameter semantics.
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 uses the specific verb 'Summarize' with the resource 'a repository directory' and lists key outputs (tree structure, dominant file types, likely entry files). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_repository_tree (which lists entries without summarization) and gitlab_get_file (which reads file contents).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a high-level summary of a directory, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_list_repository_tree for full listing, gitlab_get_file for specific files). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Repository text is treated as untrusted' implying security precautions. It also clarifies the output is a 'draft'. No contradictions with 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?
The description is two sentences: first establishes purpose and relationship to ref comparison, second adds security context. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks info on return value format, error conditions, or parameter constraints. Annotations partially mitigate safety concerns, but usage details are sparse.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description provides no details about parameters (project_id, from_ref, to_ref, limit_commits, output_format) beyond what the schema names suggest. Users must infer semantics from parameter names alone.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate draft release notes from repository compare results between two refs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gitlab_compare_refs' by indicating it produces release notes from comparison results, and adds the security note 'Repository text is treated as untrusted.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after performing a ref comparison but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as 'gitlab_get_release' or 'gitlab_list_releases'. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the wildcard matching behavior, which is useful. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence with key information front-loaded. No unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema, and the description does not specify what the tool returns (the protected branch rule details). For a simple read tool with good annotations, it is adequate but missing return information.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters (e.g., what project_id represents, how branch_name is formatted). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'protected branch rule', and the method 'by exact branch name or wildcard'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_list_protected_branches (list) and gitlab_get_branch (branch info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like gitlab_list_protected_branches. The description implies it for a specific rule but does not provide context on choosing between exact name and wildcard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting that 'Job output is untrusted' (security context) and that output is 'trimmed to a caller-specified tail length' (behavior beyond defaults). This enhances understanding without contradicting 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?
The description consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main action, and the second adds crucial context. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers the primary purpose and adds behavioral nuance. However, it lacks details on return format, error handling, or potential large payloads. It is adequate for basic use but not comprehensive.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly addresses tail_lines through 'trimmed to a caller-specified tail length'. The required parameters project_id and job_id are not explained, leaving the agent to infer them from names. This is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'job trace text', clearly defining the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_job' which returns job metadata, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'caller-specified tail length', implying usage of the tail_lines parameter, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitlab_get_job' or 'gitlab_get_pipeline_artifacts'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by revealing that it auto-fetches later pages to include older notes, a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only tool the extra pagination info is significant.
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?
Two sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides key behavior.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks information on required parameters and return format, leaving gaps for an agent. Annotations help, but the description should offer more guidance.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters, not even the required project_id and merge_request_iid. It hints at pagination via 'auto-fetches later pages' but omits details on page, per_page, and max_pages.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool lists discussions for a merge request, using clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request_commits or gitlab_get_merge_request_pipelines by focusing on discussions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating it lists discussions, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The auto-pagination hint is useful but not a full usage guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It is adequate but does not provide extra details like rate limits or authentication needs.
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?
A single sentence, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the essential action. Perfectly concise for the purpose.
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?
The description is minimal but covers the basic action. Missing details on return format, error handling, or required permissions, but given the simple tool and adequate annotations, it is marginally complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It says 'by ID' but does not elaborate on 'project_id' or 'pipeline_id' formats or constraints, leaving the agent with only parameter names.
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 'Retrieve a single pipeline by ID' uses a clear verb ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('pipeline by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_pipelines' which lists multiple pipelines.
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?
The description implies usage when a specific pipeline ID is known, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the tool's purpose is straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope of 'descendant projects,' which is behavioral information beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too minimal. It does not cover pagination, filtering, or search capabilities, which are important for effective use of this tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters. It does not explain how to use state, labels, search, or pagination parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types in the schema.
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 lists merge requests for a group and its descendant projects. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'merge requests', and the scope 'for a group and its descendant projects' distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_merge_requests (project-level) and gitlab_list_group_issues.
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?
The description provides clear context by specifying 'for a group and its descendant projects', which implies when to use this tool (group-level query) versus project-level alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, missing the highest level of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about output behaviors (highlighting directories, flagging risky surfaces) beyond what annotations provide, supporting agent decisions.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core actions. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately captures the tool's purpose and behavior but lacks parameter documentation. Annotations cover safety, but missing param explanations reduce completeness.
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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While 'between two refs' hints at from_ref and to_ref, the meaning of straight, max_commits, and output_format is undocumented, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names or external knowledge.
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's purpose: summarize changes between two refs, highlight affected directories, and flag risky surfaces. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_compare_refs or gitlab_get_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for high-level summaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like gitlab_compare_refs or gitlab_get_commit_diff. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe read-only behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly which data sources are aggregated, providing behavioral context beyond 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description covers what data is combined but does not explain the output format or structure, despite having an output_format parameter. Given the tool's composite nature, more detail on the output would improve completeness.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter details (e.g., project_id or output_format). With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'summarize', the resource 'project health', and lists the data sources combined: project metadata, recent pipelines, open issues, and open merge requests. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for high-level project health overview but does not explicitly state when to use it versus specific siblings like gitlab_get_project or gitlab_list_issues. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the specific relationship between issues and merge requests. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds context about what the tool returns, enhancing behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description provides the core purpose but lacks parameter documentation and details about the output format. It is minimally complete but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (project_id, issue_iid). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List merge requests that close a specific issue when merged.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('merge requests that close a specific issue'), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_list_merge_requests which lists all MRs.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to find MRs that close an issue), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is implicit and effective.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds a behavioral constraint about global search being disabled under certain controls. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no extraneous text. Extremely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has 13 parameters and no output schema. Description fails to cover pagination, filtering, search types, return format, or how to construct queries. Leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, description should explain parameters. It only mentions project_id and group_id, ignoring 11 other parameters like scope, search, type, sort, etc. Minimal added value.
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 across GitLab globally or within a project/group. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_search_projects by being the general search tool.
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?
Provides guidance on when to use project_id/group_id vs neither, and warns about global search being disabled. Does not explicitly mention alternatives for more specific searches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal context (returns user associated with configured token) but no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.
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?
Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. No waste.
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?
Despite no output schema, the tool is simple and the description is adequate. Could mention that it returns user details, but given annotations and simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The baseline for zero-param tools is 4.
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 action ('Return') and the resource ('authenticated GitLab user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list users or validate tokens.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for identifying the authenticated user but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. A sibling like gitlab_validate_token serves a similar but distinct purpose, yet no guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness. Description adds context about summarizing and browsing artifacts, which is consistent and provides additional behavioral insight beyond 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?
Single, well-structured sentence that captures the core functionality and optional features. No wasted words.
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?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level summary but lacks detail on return format, behavior with no artifacts, or how browsing works. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implies the function of 'tree_per_job', 'max_jobs_with_tree', etc., but does not explicitly explain each parameter or their syntax, leaving ambiguity for an agent.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Summarize' and 'browse', the resource 'artifacts produced by jobs in a pipeline', and the optional browsing behavior. It distinguishes from other GitLab pipeline tools that list jobs or get pipeline details.
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?
Description implies when to use (to get pipeline artifacts) and mentions 'optionally browse artifact trees for a bounded number of jobs', giving usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'metadata' but lacks details about return format or performance characteristics. With rich annotations, description provides marginal additional value.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, zero waste. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, explicitly stating that it returns version string would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter info, as there are none. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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?
Description clearly states it returns version metadata of the GitLab instance, using a specific verb and resource. No sibling tool provides version info, so it is well-differentiated.
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?
The description implies use for retrieving version info, which is straightforward. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed given the simplicity, but could mention it's for checking instance version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by specifying the three categories of returned information (identity, version, server config), which is beyond what annotations provide. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., invalid token) but is generally transparent.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core action, resource, and output. No redundant words; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. No output schema is needed given the simple textual output described. Completeness is achieved given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description's role in parameter semantics is minimal. The schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description correctly adds no further parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'configured token', and lists the return values: identity, version, and server configuration status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_get_current_user and gitlab_get_version by combining these into a single validation endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for token validation and health checking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like calling gitlab_get_current_user and gitlab_get_version separately. With many sibling tools, clear guidance on when to use this combined validation would improve decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-gitlab MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DevquasarX9/mcp-gitlab/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DevquasarX9/mcp-gitlab)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-gitlab MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DevquasarX9/mcp-gitlab/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/DevquasarX9/mcp-gitlab)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DevquasarX9/mcp-gitlab'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server