CERN 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 disclosure burden. It mentions key behavioral traits (recursive listing, path-specific lookups) but omits critical details like pagination behavior, rate limiting, safety profile (though implied by 'List'), or the structure of returned data.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second efficiently highlights the key capabilities. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 5 well-documented parameters but no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It successfully conveys the tool's function but has clear gaps regarding return values, error conditions, and operational constraints that would help an agent invoke the tool effectively.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description references parameters implicitly ('recursive listing', 'path specific lookups') but adds no semantic meaning, syntax examples, or parameter relationship constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('List') and resource ('files and directories in a CERN GitLab project's repository'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_file_content by emphasizing directory listing capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or clarify when to browse vs. read.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_content or search_code. While it mentions capabilities (recursive, path lookups), it doesn't state prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or decision criteria for tool selection.

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