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. Compensates well by disclosing return contents ('release notes, assets, commit info, and download links') since no output schema exists. However, lacks mention of error conditions (e.g., behavior if tag doesn't exist) or authorization requirements.

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?

Three efficient sentences with zero waste: purpose front-loaded, return values specified, and key requirement stated. No redundant information or filler text.

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 simple 2-parameter retrieval tool with flat schema structure, description is adequate. Compensates for missing output schema by detailing return fields. Could improve by noting relationship to 'list_releases' for tag discovery, but functionally complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, documenting both 'project' (numeric ID or path) and 'tag_name' formats. Description reinforces that tag_name is required but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific release'). Explicitly mentions 'specific release' which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tool 'list_releases'. Scope 'from a CERN GitLab repository' is precise.

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?

States 'Requires the tag name of the release' implying prerequisite knowledge, but does not explicitly reference sibling 'list_releases' as the alternative for discovering available tags. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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