Git MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('create') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns PR ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential clarifying information (the GitLab terminology note). Every element 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?

For a complex mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a PR object/ID), error handling, or system behavior. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool effectively despite the comprehensive parameter schema.

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 the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Create a new pull request') and resource ('pull request'), with the parenthetical clarifying GitLab terminology. It distinguishes from siblings like 'merge_pull_request' (which merges rather than creates) and 'create_issue' (different resource). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'create_branch' or 'create_comment'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing existing branches), when to use 'create_issue' instead for non-code changes, or how it relates to 'merge_pull_request' for completing the workflow. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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