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 describes the return data (pipeline data with jobs and statuses) and mentions job IDs for use with get_job_log, adding useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a helpful second sentence about using job IDs with get_job_log. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to use the output with another tool. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or data freshness, which are not covered by annotations or schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the merge_request_iid parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the last pipeline data') and resource ('for a specific merge request'), with details on what data is included ('including all jobs and their statuses'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_merge_request_details or get_pipeline_test_summary by focusing on pipeline data rather than general MR info or test summaries.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—to retrieve pipeline data for a merge request—and hints at usage with get_job_log for detailed output. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as get_merge_request_test_report for test-related data.

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