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. It successfully discloses return value structure ('release tags, dates, and descriptions') compensating partially for missing output schema, but omits explicit safety declarations (read-only status), pagination behavior details, or error conditions.

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 well-structured sentences: action statement, return value disclosure, and use case. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence.

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 no output schema exists, the description appropriately documents return values ('tags, dates, and descriptions'). With only 2 simple parameters and no nested objects, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the operation given lack of annotations.

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 clear descriptions and examples for both parameters ('project' identifier formats, 'per_page' constraints). Description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is appropriate when schema coverage is high (baseline 3).

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 ('List') + resource ('releases') + scope ('CERN GitLab repository'). Distinguishes from sibling 'get_release' (singular) and 'list_tags' by specifying it returns full release metadata including 'tags, dates, and descriptions' rather than just git tags.

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 implied usage context ('Useful for tracking software versions and finding changelogs') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_release' (for single releases) or 'list_tags' (for lightweight tag listings without full release metadata).

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