GitLab MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields returned, format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get detailed information'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context about behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for viability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'merge_request_iid' clearly documented in the schema as 'Internal ID of the merge request'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as where to find this ID or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_merge_requests' or 'get_merge_request_reviews', which would require more specific language about what 'detailed information' entails compared to those alternatives.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific merge request ID), contrast with 'list_merge_requests' for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases where detailed vs. summary information is needed. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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