Check your connection to the CERN GitLab instance, returning authentication status, GitLab version, and overall health.
Test connectivity to the CERN GitLab instance. Returns the GitLab version, authentication status, and connection health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]Input schema / titleAdded value: +"test_connectivityArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "test_connectivityDictOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the behavioral outputs: GitLab version, authentication status, and connection health. It does not contradict the annotation, and for a read-only connectivity check this is sufficient transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the core purpose and the key return values. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.
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 parameterless connectivity check with a readOnly annotation and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the operation does and what information it will receive, leaving no critical gap for selecting or invoking the tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is nothing more to add.
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 a specific action ('Test connectivity') on a specific resource ('the CERN GitLab instance') and lists the expected results (GitLab version, authentication status, connection health). It is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which focus on searching and retrieving specific data.
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 implies usage as a health/connectivity check, which is the only tool of its kind among the siblings. It gives clear context for when it would be useful, though it does not explicitly state to run it before other operations or mention what to do on failure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.