MCP GitLab 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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the scope ('All public projects + your private projects'), the return type ('Projects matching search query'), and how it differs from siblings. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior (though pagination is hinted at via parameters). For a search tool with no annotations, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured and concise, using bullet points and clear sections ('Returns:', 'Use when:', 'Scope:', 'Different from:', 'Related tools:'). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized.

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 moderate complexity (a search function with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering context: it explains purpose, usage, scope, and differences from siblings. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what fields are returned) and doesn't fully address behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication needs. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'search' includes matching behavior and examples, 'per_page' and 'page' include ranges and defaults). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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: 'Search all GitLab projects' and 'Returns: Projects matching search query'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('GitLab projects'), and scope ('all GitLab'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_projects' tool by noting that this searches across all of GitLab while list_projects only shows accessible projects. This is specific and provides clear differentiation from siblings.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use when: Finding projects across GitLab' and 'Scope: All public projects + your private projects'. It directly compares to 'list_projects' in a 'Different from' section and lists related tools ('gitlab_list_projects' and 'gitlab_search_in_project') with brief explanations of their differences. This provides clear when-to-use context and alternatives.

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