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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the automatic Git reference resolution logic (a key behavioral trait), but lacks critical safety information such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when a stack name is invalid.

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?

Extremely efficient two-sentence structure with zero waste. The first sentence establishes scope and resource, the second discloses key automation behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequately covers the input intent and search scope, mentioning 'code snippets' as the return type. However, with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should ideally disclose more about result structure (e.g., whether matches include line numbers, file paths, or repository metadata) to be fully 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%, so parameters are well-documented in the structured fields. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it repeats the 'sim11' example already present in the schema and restates the auto-resolution logic also described in the ref parameter's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

Clearly states the tool searches for code snippets within a specific LHCb software stack, using 'sim11' as a concrete example. The mention of 'Automatically resolves the correct Git references' distinguishes it from the generic sibling tool 'search_code' by highlighting stack-specific behavior, though it could explicitly name the sibling for clearer differentiation.

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?

Implies usage context through the LHCb-specific stack terminology and auto-resolution feature, but fails to explicitly state when to use this versus the generic 'search_code' tool or other siblings. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., valid stack names) or exclusion criteria.

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