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 only states it 'gets details' without specifying what details are returned, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions GitLab terminology but doesn't clarify platform-specific behaviors or response formats.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential clarification about GitLab terminology, making it appropriately sized for its function.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks output details (no output schema) and behavioral context. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address what 'details' include or platform nuances, leaving gaps for agent understanding.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 verb 'Get details' and resource 'pull request', with parenthetical clarification for GitLab terminology. It distinguishes from siblings like list_pull_requests (listing vs getting details) and get_pull_request_diffs (details vs diffs), though not explicitly named.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's focus on retrieving details for a specific pull request, suggesting it should be used when you have the PR number rather than for listing. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like get_pull_request_diffs is provided.

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