Git MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'optional filters', it doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination works (beyond schema parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format/structure of returned data. For a list operation with 10 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List pull requests') and adds necessary context ('merge requests in GitLab') and scope ('with optional filters'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of PR objects with fields), how results are structured, pagination behavior beyond schema parameters, or error handling. For a list operation that likely returns complex data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond stating 'with optional filters', which is already implied by the parameter names in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage where the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose as 'List pull requests (merge requests in GitLab) with optional filters', which includes a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pull requests'), plus scope clarification for GitLab terminology. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (singular) or 'list_issues', which might have overlapping functionality in some contexts.

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 sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (for single PR details) or 'list_issues' (for related functionality), nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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