CERN GitLab MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return payload (metadata, statistics, description) but omits safety profile, error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. 'Get' implies read-only operation.

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?

Two well-constructed sentences: first states purpose and return value, second clarifies input format. Front-loaded with no redundant or wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool, description adequately compensates for missing output schema by listing return contents (metadata, statistics, description). Would benefit from safety/auth notes given zero annotations, but acceptable scope for simple getter.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Project identifier...'). Description adds minimal value beyond schema, essentially repeating the format options with the same example ('atlas/athena'). Baseline 3 appropriate when schema does 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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('CERN GitLab project' information), specifying output contents (metadata, statistics, description). Distinguishes from file/issue/search siblings, though could explicitly differentiate from similarly-named 'inspect_project' sibling.

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?

Provides input format guidance (numeric ID vs path) with examples, but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance comparing it to sibling tools like 'inspect_project' or 'get_project_readme'.

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