GitLab MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation3/5
Many tools target distinct resources, but several have overlapping purposes: the generic 'action' tools (e.g., gitlab_branch_action, gitlab_merge_request_action) bundle multiple operations, and download-style tools (gitlab_download_url, gitlab_read_attachment, gitlab_get_job_artifact) have fuzzy boundaries. Descriptions help, but an agent may struggle to pick between similar tools like gitlab_list_notes and gitlab_list_discussions.
Naming Consistency3/5Most tools follow gitlab_verb_noun, but there are notable exceptions: noun-only tools (gitlab_wiki, gitlab_snippets), noun+action tools (gitlab_branch_action, gitlab_pipeline_action), and unique names (gitlab_whoami, gitlab_markdown_render). While the uniform prefix helps, the mixing of verb forms creates an inconsistent pattern.
Tool Count1/5With 85 tools, this set far exceeds even the 'too many' threshold (25+). While a comprehensive GitLab API wrapper could justify breadth, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy for an agent to navigate effectively.
Completeness5/5The surface covers a wide range: projects, groups, issues, MRs, notes, repository files, branches, commits, pipelines, jobs, artifacts, wiki, snippets, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no group create/update/delete tools, epics only via api_request), but the core lifecycle and operational workflows are well covered.
Average 3.3/5 across 85 of 85 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, the meaning of the 'inherited' flag, or that it returns a list. It merely restates the resource, adding no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse ('Members of a group.'). While it is concise, it is under-specified and lacks structural elements like a full sentence or clarifications. It is not verbose, but it fails to provide meaningful information, similar to a placeholder.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and a description that is only a fragment, the tool is drastically under-described. It does not explain list behavior, pagination options, filtering via query, or the inherited flag, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57%, with several parameters (query, group_id, inherited) lacking descriptions. The description does not clarify any parameters or their roles. It offers no compensation for the incomplete schema, so agents are left without guidance on how to use these fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Members of a group.' is a noun phrase that lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It conveys the resource (group members) but does not clearly state the action or distinguish from sibling tools such as gitlab_list_project_members. The title provides clarity, but the description itself is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_list_project_members or gitlab_get_group. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral traits beyond that. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default parameter values, or any nuances of listing environments, providing zero added context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only a fragment, not a complete sentence, and lacks a clear verb or structure. Although extremely short, the terseness is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, and it fails to front-load any actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no mention of return format, pagination, or defaults, the description is grossly inadequate. It provides no guidance on what the agent can expect in response or how to effectively use the tool, making it highly incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions none of the 7 parameters, and with schema coverage at 71%, parameters like 'name' and 'states' remain undocumented. The description does not compensate for these gaps or reinforce important details like the project_id fallback, so it adds no parameter-level understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description, 'Deployment environments of a project,' is a noun phrase without a verb, so it does not explicitly state that the tool lists or retrieves environments. It provides a resource type but relies on the tool name to imply the action, which is vague and not self-contained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_list_deployments. There is no mention of preconditions, filtering scenarios, or when this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, return format, or that it lists all packages vs. filtered. It only restates the domain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior, and the single sentence does not effectively communicate anything beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what is returned, how pagination works, or any nuances of filtering. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 86%, so most parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level explanation, but the schema carries the responsibility. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase ('Packages published to the project registry') that does not explicitly state the action (listing). It relies on the tool name and title to convey the operation. It adds minimal scope information (project registry) but does not distinguish from similar tools like gitlab_list_registry_repositories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about use cases, filters, or when to prefer this over other list tools (e.g., gitlab_list_registry_repositories).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint. It doesn't disclose that the operation is safe, what data is returned (e.g., release tags, dates, descriptions), or pagination behavior. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, the description should have provided additional context like 'Returns all releases with metadata and links.'
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words) but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, it leaves critical information unstated. The structure lacks front-loaded action and purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a complex GitLab API context, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what a release is, what the tool returns, how pagination works, or when to use it relative to other tools. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter schema and name inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (page, limit, per_page, all_pages, project_id) already have clear descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic value, but the full schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Releases of a project.' is a noun fragment that essentially restates the title 'List releases' without a clear verb or action. It fails to specify what the tool does (e.g., 'Retrieves a list of releases for a GitLab project') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_tags or gitlab_list_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it lists releases, when pagination should be used, or that it complements gitlab_create_release. No context about typical use cases or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response structure, or search semantics. It adds no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single fragment, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks a verb and is not structured to convey behavior. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, much like the 'Process' example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 6 parameters, the description should at least indicate that it returns project branches and supports pagination/search. The bare label 'Branches of a project.' leaves too much unspecified for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter explanation; it doesn't clarify how page, limit, all_pages, or project_id interact. Since the schema already describes most parameters well, a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Branches of a project.' is a noun phrase that restates the title without specifying the action (listing). It does not distinguish from sibling tools such as gitlab_list_protected_branches or gitlab_branch_action, and lacks a clear verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage guidance, no when-to-use vs alternatives, and no exclusions. It fails to mention how this list tool differs from protected branches or branch management tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, default limits, or what data fields are returned. Since it adds nothing beyond the annotations, it falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. It does not earn its place by adding meaningful content; it is merely a fragment. Conciseness should be about efficient communication, not omission of essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how results are structured, but it does not. It also fails to mention practical aspects like the need for project_id or the meaning of returned tags. The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description provides no extra parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the weight. The 'search' parameter lacks a schema description, but the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Repository tags.' is a noun phrase that simply restates the tool name and title. It lacks a verb and does not clearly state what action the tool performs, nor does it distinguish it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_branches or gitlab_list_releases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. The description offers no help in selecting this tool over other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Edits project settings' with no disclosure of permissions, side effects, idempotency, or how changes are applied. Annotations provide readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false but do not clarify what mutation entails. The description carries the full burden and fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified to the point of being nearly a tautology, so the brevity does not result in an effective or informative structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations. 'Edits project settings' does not explain which settings are editable, how to specify them, or the expected outcome, making it severely incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 10% (only project_id has a description), and the description itself adds no parameter explanations. With 10 parameters and no compensation in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of fields like topics, visibility, or wiki_enabled beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Edits') and the resource ('project settings'), distinguishing it from similar update tools for issues or merge requests. However, it does not list specific settings, so the scope remains somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like create_project or get_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context such as whether changes are reversible, what fields are commonly updated, or potential side effects. The description merely restates the mutation implied by the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only 5 words long, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no structuring of information and fails to convey essential details, making it nearly tautological with the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex mutation tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain expected inputs, behavior, response, or any operational context. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at only 7%, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters. It does not mention any parameter, field, or constraint. The 14-parameter schema is left entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without semantic understanding beyond raw types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edits a merge request' clearly states the action (edit/update) and resource (merge request), which distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_merge_request. However, it does not differentiate from related mutation tools such as gitlab_merge_request_action or gitlab_merge_merge_request, giving only a generic sense of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage context beyond the bare action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of pagination behavior, rate limits, or output format. It is merely a restatement of the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. While short, it sacrifices clarity and useful context, making it less effective than a slightly longer description would be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, or filtering. The single phrase 'Deployment history of a project' is inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 56%, leaving parameters like sort, status, order_by, and environment without descriptions. The tool description offers no explanation for these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deployment history of a project' conveys the resource (deployments) and scope (project) but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It does not distinguish from sibling list tools such as gitlab_list_environments or gitlab_list_releases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description merely lists 'deletes' without adding details about permanence, permissions, or consequences. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond what the annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the key actions. It is concise and easy to scan, though the brevity sacrifices detail that would help with usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, 4 actions, and no output schema, the description is drastically under-specified. It provides no information about required fields, action-specific behavior, or response formats, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not mention any parameters or how they relate to actions. With low schema coverage, the tool description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages project webhooks with three verbs (lists, creates, deletes), making the resource and actions evident. However, it omits the 'get' action from the schema, so it is slightly incomplete in differentiating all supported operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions. The description is a bare statement of capabilities without contextual cues, so the agent receives no direction for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds no behavioral detail. It does not disclose that the tool can delete snippets, that raw content retrieval may have permission requirements, or what side effects to expect. Annotations hint at state changes, but the description fails to elaborate on the nature of those changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not verbose, yet it also does not earn its place by conveying substantive information beyond what the name and schema already imply.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, 6 possible actions, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions (except project_id), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to specify snippet access, or any caveats. Sibling tools like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_create_issue provide richer descriptions for comparable complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13% (project_id only), and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. The action enum is self-explanatory, but other parameters (title, content, file_name, snippet_id, visibility, description) are unaddressed. The phrase 'including raw content' hints at the raw action but does not clarify parameter usage, such as which parameters are needed for create vs update.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource ('project snippets') and mentions raw content, but the verb 'manages' is vague and does not specify the CRUD actions (list, get, create, update, delete, raw) that the action parameter supports. It distinguishes from siblings only by the snippet resource, which no other sibling tool covers, but fails to articulate the primary operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_api_request or other project-resource tools. The description does not mention scenarios for snippet management or exclude cases where another tool would be more appropriate. No usage context or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, idempotency, or what the response contains. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not go beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the simple action it states, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It provides no information about how to identify the project, what fields are available, or what the tool returns. For a complex creation tool, this level of under-specification is unacceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at only 40%, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters like title, project_id, or labels. Instead, it mentions none of them and simply repeats the action. The required 'title' parameter and the project_id fallback are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates an issue in a project' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (issue in a project). It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_update_issue and gitlab_delete_issue by the explicit 'creates' verb. However, it is a minimal restatement of the title with only slightly more context, so it lacks depth such as what an issue entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor does it mention required context like project_id or fallback behavior. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, so an agent receives no help in deciding between this and sibling tools like gitlab_create_merge_request or gitlab_create_note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no side effects, permission requirements, draft handling, or response format. The verb 'Opens' is vague about the creation mechanics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for the minimal content it conveys, though this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than effective richness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 12 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain return values, validation rules, draft prefix behavior, cross-fork support, or how it differs from merge_merge_request. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (3 of 12 parameters have descriptions), and the description provides zero parameter semantics. It does not even mention the required source_branch and target_branch, leaving 9 parameters completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb 'Opens' and identifies the resource 'merge request' plus the key context 'between two branches'. This differentiates it from similar tools like gitlab_merge_merge_request (which performs the merge) and gitlab_update_merge_request. However, it is terse and relies on the title for the 'create' framing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list/get/update/merge merge requests. There is no mention of prerequisites, required fields, or typical workflow context, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as pagination behavior, default limits, or handling of all_pages. The mention of filters is already present in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, waste-free sentence that is front-loaded and states the core purpose. While it could be more detailed for such a parameter-rich tool, it avoids redundancy and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no notes on pagination, defaults, or return value structure, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. The agent is left without critical information needed to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., all_pages semantics, pagination limits).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 73%, leaving parameters like until, author, and with_stats underexplained. The description highlights path and date filters, adding minor prioritization, but it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters or clarify their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function as retrieving commit history, with optional path and date filters. It sufficiently distinguishes from the sibling gitlab_get_commit via the plural 'commits' and list semantics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_get_commit or gitlab_compare. It also does not mention when to use pagination features such as all_pages or per_page.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description merely restates the create/delete behavior without adding new context such as irreversibility, permissions, or side effects. It adds little beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and two possible actions. It does not over-explain, but its brevity crosses into being vague, similar to the 'Process' example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and partial parameter descriptions, the description should explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of the operation. It only states the core action, leaving out critical usage details like project_id fallback and ref requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 60% schema coverage, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like action and tag_name, but it only echoes the schema's enum values ('creates or deletes') and does not clarify ref, message, or project_id semantics. It adds no meaningful parameter meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates or deletes a tag, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like gitlab_list_tags, and the scope (e.g., project context) is not mentioned, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project_id fallback), and no exclusions. It is a bare statement of functionality without contextual usage directions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context: it does not disclose that it requires a ref, supports line-range filtering via range_start/range_end, or that it returns commit metadata (e.g., author, SHA, date). The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name, offering no new behavioral details beyond what the annotations already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single 5-word phrase—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification; it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain the return value in more detail. It only says 'per-line authorship' without specifying what each line contains (e.g., author, commit SHA, line content). It also does not mention the need for a ref or the optional range parameters. With 5 parameters and a read operation, this description leaves significant gaps for an agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 60% (ref, project_id, and range_start described; file_path and range_end missing descriptions). The description 'Per-line authorship for a file' adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not clarify that file_path identifies the file, that ref selects the branch/tag/SHA, or how range_start/end behave. Given the moderate schema coverage and zero parameter explanation in the description, the value added beyond the schema is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Per-line authorship for a file' clearly states the tool's purpose: it attributes each line to an author. It uses a specific verb ('blame') and resource (file), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like gitlab_get_file (which fetches raw content) and gitlab_list_commits (which lists commits). However, it lacks a verb phrase like 'Returns' or 'Shows,' making it more a noun phrase than a full explicit statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is useful for identifying the last commit that touched each line, nor does it contrast with gitlab_get_file or gitlab_compare. A user seeing only this description would not know if they should choose blame over other file/commit tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral details. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or the nature of the fork (e.g., whether it copies all branches, triggers CI, or requires certain roles). No contradiction with annotations, but no added transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. There is no wasted language. However, it is perhaps too terse, as it omits useful context, but for conciseness and structure alone it earns a 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a fork operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result of the fork is, whether the fork is created asynchronously, or how errors surface. The description barely covers the core action and leaves the agent with many uncertainties about execution and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (project_id and namespace_path are described, name and path are not). The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain what 'name' and 'path' refer to or how they relate to the fork operation, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Forks') and the object ('a project') and the target ('into a namespace'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_create_project, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives. The title is merely 'Fork project', but the description adds the namespace target, improving clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as gitlab_create_project or gitlab_update_project. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would fork instead of create. The only context is the description itself, which simply states the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context like auth requirements, response shape, or error handling, and it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is under-specified but contains no fluff, making it efficient if not fully informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation, the description is minimally sufficient, but the unclear with_projects parameter and the lack of an output schema or return details create gaps. The description does not help an agent distinguish this from sibling get/list tools, and the optional parameter's effect is unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% – group_id is well-documented but with_projects is not. The tool description 'Details for one group' adds no parameter meaning, leaving the optional with_projects parameter ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Details for one group' clearly conveys that the tool returns information about a single group. It distinguishes it from list-type tools like gitlab_list_groups, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as gitlab_list_groups or gitlab_get_project. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the project/group scope, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination, filtering, or response shape. It does not contradict annotations, and the annotation coverage lowers the burden, but richer behavioral notes would be expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short ('Milestones of a project or group.'), which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. It is not tautological, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential context, making it more under-specified than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and limited schema coverage, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns, how pagination works, or typical use cases. It only states the scope, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for correct invocation and interpretation of results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 63%, leaving parameters like state, search, and group_id undocumented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics, failing to compensate for these gaps. The existing schema descriptions for page, limit, per_page, all_pages, and project_id are helpful, but the overall parameter understanding is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (milestones) and its scope (project or group), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue or merge request lists. However, it lacks an explicit verb; the title supplies 'list'. Overall purpose is clear but could be more explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like needing a project_id or group_id. The description is purely definitional and offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, project_id fallback, or return format). Since the tool is a straightforward list and the annotation provides the key safety profile, this is minimally sufficient but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short phrase), but it is not a full sentence and lacks a verb. While it has no unnecessary words, it is under-specified and does not follow a clear 'verb + resource' structure. It is efficient but not sufficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of scheduled pipelines). The current text only names the resource and doesn't even explicitly say it lists them. The parameter schema is rich, but the tool description leaves out essential return/usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scheduled pipelines of a project' is a noun phrase that names the resource but lacks an explicit action verb. It doesn't clearly say 'lists' or 'returns', and it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'gitlab_list_pipelines'. The title 'List pipeline schedules' helps, but the description itself is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as 'gitlab_list_pipelines'. There are no context hints, prerequisites, or notes about project_id fallback behavior. It is a single statement with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the schema already exposes (e.g., the 'inherited' parameter), nor does it disclose pagination defaults, auth requirements, or other runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, avoiding unnecessary text. However, it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence and could be improved by adding a verb, but it earns a high score for efficient use of words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a rich schema (7 fully documented params) and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks any context about when to prefer this over sibling member tools or how pagination behaves, so it is not fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (page, limit, query, per_page, all_pages, inherited, project_id) have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the 'inherited' option, which is already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase ('Members of a project...') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It identifies the resource and optional inherited members, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get', so its purpose is only implied via the tool name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as gitlab_list_group_members or gitlab_get_project. It simply states what the tool returns, without exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention permissions, error handling, idempotency, or effects on related resources, providing no extra transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, earning its place by stating the core function without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It lacks details on how parameters interact, what the update actually changes, or any edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only project_id has a description), and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It fails to clarify the roles of iid, note_id, target_type, or body, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Edits an existing comment.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool modifies an existing comment rather than creating or deleting one. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_note and gitlab_delete_issue, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply restates the function implied by the tool name and title, offering no additional context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., whether it replaces existing membership, requires project owner permissions, or returns the created member). It merely restates the tool's purpose without disclosing side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence ('Grants a user access to a project.') with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but has gaps. There is no output schema, so the agent does not know what the tool returns (e.g., the created membership object). The annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, but behavioral aspects like idempotency or permission requirements are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters (user_id, access_level, expires_at, project_id). The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The access_level description in the schema is explicit about numeric values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Grants a user access to a project' uses a specific verb ('grants') and identifies the resource (project access). It clearly conveys the tool adds a member, though it could be more explicit about 'adding a project member' or 'access level'. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_project_members.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_project_members, update_project_member). The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. The agent is left to infer from the name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false indicate mutation but non-destruction, but the description does not disclose permission needs, response formats, or side effects of add/remove operations. For a multi-action mutation tool, this is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, and the verb list (lists, adds, removes) is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a CRUD-like tool, though a slightly more structured breakdown of actions could enhance readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three distinct actions, seven parameters, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return behavior (e.g., what list returns), does not mention that emoji reactions apply to issues, MRs, or snippets, and lacks examples or usage prerequisites. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without relying heavily on schema and trial-and-error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57%, with useful descriptions for name, note_id, award_id, and project_id. The description itself adds no param semantics, but the self-explanatory enums for action and target_type, plus the schema's field descriptions, provide adequate grounding. The iid parameter lacks description, but it is a common GitLab concept.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists, adds, or removes emoji reactions, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that manage issues, MRs, or notes, but it does not mention the target types (issue, merge_request, snippet) offered in the schema, so it's not fully explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or preconditions mentioned. The description does not explain which action requires which parameters or when a user would choose 'list' vs 'add' vs 'remove', apart from what the schema already implies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely says 'creates' with no extra behavioral details. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no context about side effects, duplicate handling, permissions, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It does not mention project_id fallback behavior or what the tool returns, leaving important context missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool description contains no parameter information. The schema partially documents color and project_id, but name and description are left undocumented, and the description does not compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates') and the resource ('a project label'), which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like gitlab_list_labels. The addition of 'project' clarifies the scope, so it's not a group-level label.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project) or whether to check existing labels first before creating a new one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the 'project or group' scope, which provides useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, fallback to environment variables, or search behavior beyond what the schema already hints at.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that is easy to read and front-loaded with the key scope information. It earns its place but is slightly under-specified, being a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are 7 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotation detail, the description is too thin. It does not explain the relationship between project and group scoping, how pagination works, or what the response will contain. The agent is left without enough context to reliably invoke the tool in varied scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71%, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It loosely maps to project_id/group_id by saying 'project or group', but search and group_id are left undocumented both in the description and the schema. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title provides the verb 'List' and the description specifies the resource ('labels') and scope ('of a project or group'). This makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gitlab_create_label, relying on the verb to imply read-only listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about needing to specify either project_id or group_id. The description only states what the tool operates on, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide minimal information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation action but omits important details such as whether existing content is overwritten, whether a commit is created, or any prerequisites like branch existence. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but given the tool's complexity (9 parameters), the extreme brevity leaves out essential context that could be included without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this one-line description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as the action default, project_id fallback, start_branch behavior, and potential side effects. The description fails to provide a complete operational picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. Schema coverage is only 56%, leaving parameters like author_name, author_email, and commit_message without descriptions, and the description does not compensate for this gap. It provides zero parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (creates/updates) and resource (single file in a branch), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file or gitlab_commit_files which handle reads or multiple files. It fully captures the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'single file' implies this is for single-file operations, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like gitlab_commit_files is provided. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that the list is scoped by token visibility, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or return format, so it provides only marginal additional behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose immediately and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the read-only annotation, the tool has 7 parameters including pagination and filtering options. The description lacks any mention of pagination, result limits, or filtering behavior, which are necessary for an agent to use the tool effectively. The one-line description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57%, meaning three parameters (owned, search, top_level_only) lack descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameter semantics or compensate for this gap. With 7 parameters and no parameter-related info in the description, the agent must rely solely on the partial schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lists groups visible to the token' clearly identifies the action (lists) and resource (groups), with the scope being groups the token can access. It distinguishes from get_group (single group) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_group_projects, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or typical use cases. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer when listing groups is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds 'CI pipelines with status and ref filters', providing light context about the resource and filtering scope, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, defaults, or other runtime traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex with 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or pagination semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The minimal description leaves the agent to infer important behaviors like all_pages handling and response structure, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 62% schema description coverage, many parameters are documented in the schema, but the description itself only mentions status and ref filters. It does not clarify parameters like `sha`, `sort`, or `updated_after` that lack schema descriptions, nor does it add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('list'), resource ('pipelines'), and scope ('CI pipelines'), with mention of status and ref filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_pipeline (single pipeline) and gitlab_list_jobs (jobs), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer gitlab_get_pipeline for a single pipeline or gitlab_list_jobs for jobs within a pipeline. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a mutation but not destructive. The description adds nothing beyond that—it doesn't disclose that the release is associated with an existing tag, that the tag could be auto-created via the 'ref' parameter, or that the operation is essentially a create. Minimal added value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is highly concise and easy to parse, though this comes at the expense of completeness (captured in other dimensions).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations. The description is far too brief to be contextually complete: it doesn't mention that the release is tied to a tag, how the 'ref' parameter can create missing tags, any permission requirements, or what the response contains. It also fails to differentiate from sibling tools like gitlab_list_releases, making the overall context insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'ref' and 'project_id' have descriptions). The description does not compensate: it fails to explain that 'tag_name' is required, or the meaning of 'name', 'description', or 'milestones'. The phrase 'for a tag' provides only a vague clue about tag_name. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool with low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Publishes a release for a tag.' It distinguishes this from sibling operations like listing releases (gitlab_list_releases) or managing tags (gitlab_tag_action), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., tag existence), alternatives like gitlab_list_releases for reading releases, or exclusions. The agent is left without context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a behavioral nuance beyond the readOnlyHint by specifying that only MRs that 'reference or close' the issue are returned. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or permission details, though the annotations already signal a safe read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. The title 'Issue → merge requests' is a compact and informative visual representation. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only lookup, the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits details about the return type, the meaning of issue_iid, and how this differs from other MR-related tools. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 50%, only project_id has a description (including fallback). The required issue_iid parameter is left undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate for this gap or explain how to use the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Merge requests that reference or close this issue' clearly identifies the resource (merge requests) and their relationship to the issue, distinguishing it from generic MR listing tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', which would make the action unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 sibling tools like gitlab_list_merge_requests or gitlab_get_merge_request. It doesn't state that this is for finding MRs linked to a specific issue, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (destructiveHint=true). It merely repeats the action enum from the schema without explaining side effects (e.g., erasing a job deletes its trace) or noting that retry/cancel may fail depending on job status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. No filler or redundancy, and it avoids restating the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with multiple possible actions, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about post-conditions, error scenarios, or how actions interact (e.g., 'play' triggers a manual job, 'erase' removes logs). No output schema exists, so the description should have provided more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining job_id or the meaning of each action value; it just lists verbs that mirror the enum, adding no new semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as operating on a CI job with a specific set of verbs (inspects, retries, cancels, runs, erases). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_jobs or gitlab_get_job_log, which focus on listing or reading logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use a dedicated get/retry endpoint). The description only lists actions without context on job state requirements, permissions, or fallback behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'deletes' adds no new safety info beyond what's structured. It does clarify that the tool also supports read (get) and create operations, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permanence, permissions, or protected branch handling. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with zero filler. It's front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose. All words earn their place, making it an efficient example of minimalism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only 4 parameters, the tool supports four distinct actions with different parameter requirements. The description doesn't explain that create requires 'ref' and 'branch', delete requires 'branch', or delete_merged requires only 'project_id'. Without this action-parameter mapping, the agent may misinvoke the tool. No output schema further limits completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (ref, branch, project_id), and the action enum is self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, relying entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate for any gaps like which params apply to which action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Gets, creates or deletes branches' clearly states the core actions with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from read-only list tools like gitlab_list_branches, but it doesn't mention the 'delete_merged' action or explicitly differentiate from other branch-related tools, so it's clear but not fully comprehensive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 like gitlab_list_branches or gitlab_tag_action. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the schema and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds that the pipeline includes jobs, durations, and failure reasons, but does not disclose behaviors like default values for include_variables or response structure. This is minimal but not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded. It contains no redundant words and quickly conveys the core content of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not describe the return format, the effect of include_variables, or the project_id fallback behavior. It gives only a high-level idea, which is insufficient for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: project_id and include_jobs have descriptions, but pipeline_id and include_variables do not. The description implies include_jobs behavior via 'with its jobs' but does not explain pipeline_id or include_variables, adding limited meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'A pipeline with its jobs, durations and failure reasons' indicates the tool returns a single pipeline with its associated data, clearly distinguishing it from list_pipelines which returns multiple pipelines. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets', relying on the title and tool name to convey action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_get_job or gitlab_list_pipelines, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as needing a specific pipeline_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the scoping detail (project or group). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response structure, or how lists are included, so it provides minimal additional behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only listing, though it could have included more guidance without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and six parameters, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the response structure (e.g., board object with lists), the relationship between project/group scoping, or pagination behavior. It is minimally adequate but under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description implies that project_id and group_id are the scoping parameters, adding slight meaning to the undocumented group_id, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (issue boards and their lists) and scope (project or group), distinguishing it from other list tools like gitlab_list_issues. However, it lacks an explicit verb in the description, relying on the title 'List issue boards' to convey the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the need to provide either project_id or group_id. The description simply states what the tool returns without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about the two possible scopes (current user or project) and provides examples of event types, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with all_pages/limit, even though these are present in the schema. Given annotations, the added transparency is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with a parenthetical listing event types. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and scope. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though slightly under-specified. This is efficient without being wasteful, similar to the 'update_drive' example which scored 4.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains the overall purpose and scope but does not mention return value format, pagination, or the meaning of all_pages/limit. Since the schema fills many gaps, the description meets the minimum bar but could be more complete for a complex list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 90%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description's mention of 'pushes, comments, merges' overlaps with the schema's examples for 'action' and 'target_type', adding little new meaning. It does imply that project_id distinguishes project events from user events, but the schema already says that. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Activity stream for the current user or a project', which clearly identifies the tool as listing events and distinguishes its scope (user vs project). It also provides examples of event types ('pushes, comments, merges'), making the purpose clear. However, it lacks a strong verb+resource phrasing, relying on the name 'list_events' to convey the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_todos or list_issues. It only implies usage by naming the resource ('Activity stream'), but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention sibling tools. For example, it could clarify that this is the tool for event streams, not for directly listing issues or merge requests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add scoping context, which it does ('of a pipeline or of the whole project'). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or that results may be large, but the schema covers pagination parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally short, which is a plus for conciseness, but it's a sentence fragment rather than a full instruction. It conveys the core distinction without wasted words, though it could be phrased as a complete sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With annotations covering safety and a high-coverage schema, the minimal description is adequate for a simple read-only list operation. However, it doesn't mention whether it returns all jobs by default or if project_id falls back to environment variables, but these are in the schema. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, pagination), a bit more context would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema provides most parameter meanings. The description itself adds no parameter details; the scope parameter lacks a description, but the enum values are self-explanatory. Thus, the description doesn't add value beyond the high-coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Jobs of a pipeline or of the whole project,' which clearly indicates the resource (CI jobs) and the two scoping modes. While it lacks an explicit verb, the tool title 'List CI jobs' provides that, and it distinguishes from sibling job tools like get_job_log and job_action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as gitlab_get_job_log or gitlab_job_action. The description only states the two possible scopes, leaving the choice of tool entirely to the agent without any contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a small behavioral detail—that the protection rules specify who may push/merge—which gives some context about the returned data. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens if no branches are protected. The added value beyond annotations is minimal, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key noun phrase 'Protection rules for branches'. However, it is almost too terse—the phrase 'Protection rules for branches' reads more like a definition than a description of what the tool does, slightly reducing its effectiveness. Still, it earns a good conciseness score for its economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool, the description conveys the core concept (branch protection rules and their push/merge permissions). It has no output schema, so the description should at least clarify the expected return value, which it partially does. However, it does not state that the tool returns a list, nor does it mention pagination behavior beyond what the schema parameters imply. This leaves some ambiguity about the operation, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the five parameters (page, limit, per_page, all_pages, project_id) having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, which is acceptable given the schema already sufficiently documents the parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Protection rules for branches (who may push/merge)' clearly identifies the resource (branch protection rules) and the key detail of what those rules govern (push/merge permissions). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like gitlab_list_branches (which lists branches themselves) and gitlab_branch_action (which performs branch operations). However, it does not explicitly state the action 'list' or 'retrieve', relying on the title for that, and does not directly differentiate itself from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 does not mention any context such as 'use this to view branch protection settings' or exclude cases like 'for regular branches, use list_branches'. The only usage hint is implicit in the resource name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations exist but provide limited insight (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description only mentions 'edits', which could imply non-destructive updates, and notably fails to disclose that the tool supports 'delete' (a clearly destructive action). No information about permissions, side effects, or reversibility is provided, leaving the agent underinformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with the key verbs and resource, containing no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters, an action enum with 5 values, and no output schema. The description is too terse to cover action-specific behaviors, return payloads, or the project_id fallback. It fails to convey the complexity of a multi-action wiki tool, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57%, with descriptions for slug, content, project_id, and with_content. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, and does not explain the 'action' enum or relationships between parameters. Since coverage is moderate, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses clear verbs ('Lists, reads and edits') tied to a specific resource ('wiki pages of a project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that don't cover wiki operations. However, 'edits' is a bit vague as it doesn't explicitly mention create/delete actions, though the schema clarifies these.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives the context 'of a project' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to choose specific actions. Since there are no sibling wiki tools, the need for exclusion is low, but action-specific guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond stating that it creates a commit, such as whether it checks out branches, how conflicts are handled, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant disclosure gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core function and supported operations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested actions array, 5 parameters, no output schema) and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits usage scenarios, branch-related behavior, and return details, leaving the agent to infer too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers about 60% of parameters with descriptions (project_id, start_branch, actions), but branch and commit_message lack descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level guidance, e.g., how to format content or the actions array, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a single commit affecting multiple files, and lists the supported file operations (create/update/delete/move). The phrase 'several files at once' distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_or_update_file which handle individual files, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for batch file operations within one commit, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_create_or_update_file for single-file changes) or provide exclusion criteria. The intended use case is inferred from 'several files at once', which is implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds little extra. It doesn't mention that 'reset_estimate' and 'reset_spent' clear existing values, or that 'estimate' overwrites, which is important behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler, directly states the purpose. It is appropriately brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 distinct actions and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't enumerate the actions or describe their effects, leaving an agent without enough context to correctly select an action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description does not explain any parameters. With 60% schema coverage, the missing descriptions for 'action' and 'issue_iid' are not compensated. The high-level 'reads or updates' doesn't map to the specific actions in the enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads or updates estimate and spent time on an issue, using a specific verb ('reads or updates') and resource ('estimate and spent time on an issue'). This distinguishes it from sibling issue tools that handle general issue fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but it doesn't compare with alternatives like gitlab_update_issue or state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description merely restates the basic function without adding behavioral context such as default recursion behavior, pagination handling, or output structure. No additional context is provided beyond what annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal, leaving the 'recursive' parameter unexplained and not describing pagination or output format. However, the read-only annotation and good schema coverage for most parameters make it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 88%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter semantics. The 'recursive' parameter lacks a description in the schema, and the description does not compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('files and directories in the repository tree'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file (which fetches a single file) and gitlab_list_branches (which lists branches, not files).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., gitlab_get_file) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description simply restates the mutation ('Adds a reply') without adding extra behavioral context such as required permissions, ordering, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose, making it easy to parse and free of redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, 4 required, and no output schema, this one-liner is insufficient. It does not explain what iid or target_type represent, how to obtain discussion_id, or any expectations about the reply content. The schema's minimal descriptions are not supplemented by the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers only 40% of parameters with descriptions (project_id and discussion_id). The description does not explain any parameters; it only vaguely implies that body is the reply content. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Adds a reply') and the target ('existing discussion thread'). This distinguishes it from tools that create new threads or list discussions, making it specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for replying to an existing discussion, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new thread or listing discussions. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotation contradiction: the description allows calling ANY endpoint with methods POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE per the schema, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. The description itself also fails to disclose that operations can modify/delete data, or mention response format, rate limits, or auth details, leaving the contradictory annotation to mislead agents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, immediately communicates purpose and scope, and includes a link to API resources. Every sentence earns its place, and it is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's generic nature and lack of output schema, the description is too thin. It does not state that responses are raw API JSON, nor does it mention pagination rounding, error handling, or authentication nuances. The link to docs helps, but the contradictory annotation and missing behavioral details leave significant gaps for a tool that can hit any endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden of parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'calls ANY GitLab REST API v4 endpoint with the configured credentials', defining it as a generic raw API tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as an 'escape hatch' for endpoints 'without a dedicated tool', with examples.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use it for endpoints without a dedicated tool' and lists example use cases, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It implicitly excludes endpoints with dedicated tools, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use when a dedicated tool exists', so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: values of masked variables are not returned by GitLab. This is useful context beyond the annotations, which already indicate destructive potential. It helps the agent set correct expectations for create/update/read operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is no redundant or filler content, and it earns its place as a concise summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema) and limited parameter description coverage, this description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, required fields for each action, or variable types, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without further assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 13%, and the description does not compensate. Only project_id is explained in the schema, while key, value, action, protected, variable_type, and environment_scope remain undefined. The mention of masked variables is not a parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as 'project CI/CD variables' and states a general management capability. The verb 'manages' is broad but the action enum in the schema specifies the operations. It is distinguishable from sibling tools, which handle other GitLab resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the name and resource reference; an agent would infer it when needing to manage CI/CD variables. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description 'Fetches a single user by id' adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotations—no rate limits, error behavior, or response format. It is essentially a restatement of the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and no unnecessary words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple get-by-id operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is very sparse: it does not mention return values, error handling, or any special behaviors. Since no output schema exists, the description carries more burden, but it fails to provide even basic context about what happens on success or failure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with user_id described as 'Numeric user id.' The tool description's 'by id' adds no new meaning beyond the parameter name and schema description, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetches a single user by id,' specifying the verb and the resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like gitlab_list_users, which lists users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fetching a specific user by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it as opposed to alternatives or mention exclusions. No comparison to gitlab_list_users or other tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is established. The description adds the specific data fields returned (languages, contributors, repository size), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any edge cases, permissions, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that lists the three key data categories. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple read-only statistics tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool's low complexity (one parameter), strong annotations (read-only), and complete schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what data is returned. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail about return format might be expected, but the description's brevity fits the simplicity of the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the sole parameter 'project_id' with a description including examples and fallback behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Languages, contributors and repository size for a project' clearly identifies the resource (project) and the type of data returned (statistics). It implies a retrieval operation, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. The specific data categories distinguish it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as when needing repository size or contributor breakdowns. The tool name and siblings imply it, but no explicit usage direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate write/non-destructive. The description adds the capability to create within a group, which aligns with the namespace_id parameter. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., pipeline triggers, name collisions) or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded, concise without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits common options (visibility, README initialization) and fails to explain response behavior or error cases, so an agent may need to guess or make unnecessary API calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only addresses the namespace/group option; other parameters like visibility, topics, initialize_with_readme are not explained. With only 38% schema coverage, this leaves many parameters ambiguous for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (creates) and resource (project) and adds a key differentiator (optionally inside a group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_project or delete_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only implies usage through the action verb. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer that this tool is for creating new projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one behavioral detail: the option to wait for the pipeline to pass. However, it does not disclose other side effects like source branch removal or irreversibility, which are relevant for a destructive operation. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that starts with the verb and resource, then adds the optional pipeline condition. Every word contributes, with no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, no output schema, and a sparse description, the tool lacks enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The description covers only the basic action and one optional behavior, but leaves parameter semantics, return values, and side effects unexplained. This is inadequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description itself hints at merge_when_pipeline_succeeds ('waiting for the pipeline to pass') but does not explain other key parameters like sha, squash, commit messages, or should_remove_source_branch. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents without sufficient meaning for most parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Merges' and the resource 'merge request', and adds a specific behavioral nuance ('optionally waiting for the pipeline to pass') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request or gitlab_update_merge_request. It unambiguously conveys the core action and its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for merging a merge request, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., gitlab_merge_request_action) or when not to use it. The 'optionally waiting for the pipeline' gives some context, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided, so it remains at an implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (that the result includes a commit list), but does not elaborate on return format, pagination, or how the 'straight' parameter affects the diff.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant wording. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the 100% schema coverage, read-only annotations, and the description's note that the result includes the commit list, the tool is sufficiently described for a compare operation. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by mentioning the commit list, though more detail about the response structure would push it to a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's mention of 'branches, tags or commits' echoes the schema's 'branch/tag/SHA' but adds no new semantic detail, justifying the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Diff') and the resource scope ('between two branches, tags or commits'), and adds that the result includes the commit list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_commits or gitlab_get_merge_request_diff by focusing on comparing two arbitrary refs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gitlab_get_merge_request_diff or gitlab_list_commits. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'permanently,' which reinforces irreversibility, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., confirm parameter requirement, impact on related resources) are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, stating exactly what the tool does. It earns its place and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The essential action is clear, and the schema supplies the required parameters. However, for a destructive tool, the description could mention the confirm safety gate or irreversibility in more explicit terms, so it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (project_id has a description). The tool description provides no parameter explanations beyond what the schema already shows, and the confirm parameter's purpose (must be true) is left entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Permanently deletes') and the resource ('an issue'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_issue, update_issue, or create_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The phrasing 'Permanently deletes' implies the use case, but no direct comparison or warning is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: text comes back decoded and as_image=true lets users view repository images. This is meaningful but does not cover auth requirements or response size limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second earns its place by explaining the image behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple read operation, the fully documented schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the key behavioral nuance (decoded text vs. image) and does not need to detail return values since no output schema is provided. A slight gap is the lack of sibling comparison.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions as_image but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already explains.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reads a file from the repository' with a specific verb and resource, and it adds useful detail about decoded text and image mode. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as gitlab_blame_file or gitlab_download_url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_list_repo_tree or gitlab_blame_file. The description states what it does but lacks context about exclusions or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds examples of return fields but does not mention behavior on missing project, authentication needs, or rate limits. Some value added, but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description gives examples of the response but not a full understanding of the returned object. It is adequate for a simple get operation but lacks details on response structure or edge cases. Given the sibling complexity, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (license param lacks any description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining the license parameter or any parameters. It adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies a get operation for a single project, listing specific fields (default branch, namespace, web URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_projects (plural) and project modification/deletion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied ('one project') but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. With many sibling tools, clearer guidance on when to choose this over gitlab_list_projects or gitlab_project_statistics would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description's mention of create/delete operations. However, the description adds no deeper behavioral context such as side effects of deleting a link, potential validation failures, or required permissions, leaving the agent to infer these from the action parameter alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the three main actions and target resource. It is concise with zero wasted words, fitting the standard for a minimal yet effective tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, making the description's brevity insufficient. It fails to explain that 'create' requires target_issue_iid, 'delete' requires issue_link_id, and that link_type is conditional on the action. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., project_id, action, target_issue_iid), and the remaining params (issue_iid, link_type) are inferable via names/enums. The description itself provides no additional parameter semantics, so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameters, but the schema already handles most of the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs: 'Lists, creates or removes links between issues' and names the link types (relates to / blocks / blocked by). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like gitlab_issue_related_merge_requests, which handle a different resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives/exclusions. Usage is implied by its purpose—managing issue links—but the agent is given no guidance on scenarios that favor this tool over others or prerequisites for actions like 'create' (e.g., needing a target issue).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scoping detail that only projects visible to the token are returned, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, response format, or other behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, stating the primary action and scope without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and only 54% schema description coverage, the short description is insufficient for an agent to understand common usage patterns, such as combining filters or using all_pages. It fails to explain the meaning of ambiguous parameters or provide guidance on pagination and limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 54%, leaving several parameters (e.g., owned, starred, archived, order_by, visibility) without descriptions. The description only mentions search and membership filters, which are already described in the schema, adding marginal value beyond the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists projects, specifies the scope ('visible to the token'), and mentions key filters (search and membership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_group_projects or get_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing projects accessible to the token, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. It offers moderate context but no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lists both mutating actions (approve, rebase, cancel) and read-only inspections, which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it does not add deeper behavioral context such as permission requirements, idempotency, or side effects of each action. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations significantly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the tool's capabilities. It is somewhat list-heavy but avoids redundant phrasing and remains readable. A slight improvement could be splitting into use-case categories, but as is, it is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has multiple action types and no output schema, so the description bears the responsibility of explaining behavior. It covers the main actions but lacks details about return values, permissions, or special behaviors (e.g., what does 'approve' return? are there side effects?). This makes it minimally viable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only project_id has a description), so the description must compensate. It does provide semantic meaning for the 'action' parameter by explaining what each action does, but it offers no additional context for 'merge_request_iid' or 'project_id' beyond what the schema already gives. Overall, it partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's purpose with a list of concrete actions ('Approve/unapprove, rebase, cancel auto-merge, or inspect...') and identifies the resource ('a merge request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_get_merge_request or gitlab_update_merge_request by focusing on specialized MR actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage scenarios by enumerating the available actions, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent can infer that this tool is for approval, rebase, and inspection actions, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this over related merge request tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the fact that it can both resolve and unresolve (binary state change), which is beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or idempotency, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, six-word sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple toggle operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core functionality but lacks usage guidance and parameter elaboration. It is not deeply informative but toplevel understanding is achievable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers only 50% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no parameter information at all. 'discussion_id' and 'merge_request_iid' remain undocumented in either the schema or description, and the meaning of 'iid' is not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('marks'), the resource ('review thread'), and the specific action ('resolved or unresolved'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like creating or replying to threads. It is direct and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied from the action of resolving/unresolving a thread, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like replying to a discussion or creating a thread. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavior of omitting IDs to get instance-wide issues, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or filter semantics, which are relevant for a list tool. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, then lists the scope options and mentions filters. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 22 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too brief to be complete. It does not explain how to combine filters, default pagination behavior, or how project_id falls back to environment variables, all of which are critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The description leaves too much implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 45%, with many parameters (e.g., updated_after, author_username, assignee_username) undocumented. The description says 'usual filters' but does not compensate by explaining any of these parameters or clarifying their semantics. The description adds minimal value over the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues, with scoping to project, group, or whole instance, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_issue (single issue) and gitlab_create_issue. The verb 'lists' and resource 'issues' are specific, and the scope options are explicitly mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on which scopes are available (project, group, instance) and how to select the instance-wide scope by omitting IDs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for a straightforward list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnly=true and destructive=false; description adds non-obvious behavior that omitting both ids covers the whole instance, and mentions the usual filters. This contextualizes the action without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 21 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It explains the high-level scope but leaves many filter semantics, input formats, and return behavior unspecified, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without prior GitLab knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond 'usual filters'. It highlights the scope selection (project_id/group_id) but leaves 14 parameters unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (lists merge requests) and the target resources (project, group, or instance). Distinct from sibling get_merge_request which fetches a specific MR.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on when to use (for listing at different scopes) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_merge_request imply a single-MR use case but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context about optionally including tags but no deeper behavioral details like pagination behavior or response format, though schema covers pagination parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that directly states the resource and optional parameter. No wasted words, fully front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with rich schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is adequate. It does not explain return value structure, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 83% (only 'tags' lacks a description), so baseline is 3. The phrase 'optionally with tags' adds meaning to the undocumented 'tags' boolean parameter, providing value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (container registry repositories of a project) and the operation is implied by the title 'List container images'. It distinguishes from siblings since no other tool targets container registries, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a specific project's container registry but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools like gitlab_list_packages exist but no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the scope of 'authenticated user's todo items' but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or response format, so it adds limited extra value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately states the verb and resource with no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters including filters and pagination, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not mention available filters (type, state, action), pagination controls, or the shape of the returned data, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate. It mentions example todo types (assignments, mentions, review requests) that map to action enum values, but leaves project_id, type, and state parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Lists the authenticated user's todo items' with specific types (assignments, mentions, review requests), distinguishing it from sibling list tools like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_list_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it lists the authenticated user's todos, which implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a self-evident list tool this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that it can close/reopen issues, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and offers meaningful context about state changes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence: 'Edits an issue, including closing/reopening it.' It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains zero fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with 13 parameters, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain return values (no output schema), partial update behavior, or any nuances beyond the state change. The context provided is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 15%, with just 2 of 13 parameters documented. The description only hints at the state_event parameter via 'closing/reopening', providing no semantic help for the other 11 parameters like title, weight, assignee_ids, or confidential. Given low coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Edits' with the resource 'issue', and adds the key scope 'including closing/reopening it.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_issue and gitlab_delete_issue, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (use this to modify an issue) but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or reference sibling tools such as gitlab_create_issue or gitlab_get_issue, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful context about the two modes of operation (anchored vs general) and the need to obtain diff_refs beforehand. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like permissions, notifications, or what exactly constitutes a review thread. Annotations are minimal (write but not destructive), so more disclosure would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, but the ambiguous 'line' and 'diff_refs' terms slightly reduce precision. Overall, it's efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat sparse. It mentions the key prerequisite (obtaining diff_refs) but doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how to set project_id (though the schema covers the fallback). It's adequate but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 67% of parameters with some descriptions, and the description adds meaning by explaining the role of file_path and line for anchoring. However, the term 'diff_refs' doesn't directly map to the actual sha fields (base_sha, head_sha, start_sha), and 'line' is ambiguous between new_line and old_line. This leaves confusion for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool starts a review thread on MR code, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between anchored and general discussions, which differentiates it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_note or gitlab_reply_to_discussion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit conditions for when to anchor a thread (with file_path + line + diff_refs) versus posting a general discussion, and even references gitlab_get_merge_request for obtaining diff_refs. This is clear usage guidance, though it doesn't directly compare to all alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the included data fields and optional comments/attachments, but does not disclose additional behavior such as defaults or response structure beyond what the schema provides. No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, information-dense sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Full merge request') and enumerates key contents without extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description lists main returned sections (branches, approvals, merge status, pipeline, comments, attachments), giving a reasonable picture of the tool's output. Could be more detailed about exact response shape, but adequate for a read operation with high schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 80%, so the schema does heavy lifting. The description adds context that comments and attachments are optional, aligning with schema booleans, but does not explain merge_request_iid or project_id fallback beyond schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('merge request'), and clarifies scope with 'Full' plus enumerated content (branches, approvals, merge status, pipeline, comments, attachments), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_get_merge_request_diff and gitlab_list_merge_requests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when full merge request details are needed, listing included data, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavior of optional subgroup recursion, which is not evident from annotations alone. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or other nuances like how 'all_pages' interacts with 'limit', leaving some behavioral aspects unsaid.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and the optional recursion behavior, earning every word. There is no fluff or repetition of the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with annotations and a rich schema, the description is mostly complete. It provides the essential purpose and a key option (subgroup recursion). However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly state that results are a list of projects or mention pagination defaults, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward listing tool. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 63% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema handles most parameter semantics. The description indirectly clarifies 'include_subgroups' by mentioning 'recursing into subgroups', which adds value beyond the bare schema. Other parameters like 'search' and 'archived' remain undocumented in both schema and description, but since coverage is above 50%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Projects inside a group, optionally recursing into subgroups' clearly identifies the resource (projects in a group) and action (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_projects which lists all projects. The specific mention of group scoping and subgroup recursion leaves no ambiguity about what the tool covers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need projects within a specific group. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., gitlab_list_projects for all projects, gitlab_get_group for group metadata). The description does not state exclusions or preferences, so it relies on the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, ordering, whether system notes are included). It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't go beyond what structured data already states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does. It wastes no words and includes the key scope (target types), making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with rich schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient to convey the core behavior. No output schema exists, but the term 'comments (notes)' makes the return value unambiguous. It could mention pagination or that it returns a list, but the tool name covers this. Overall, it is nearly complete for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 78%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself does not elaborate on any parameter semantics beyond naming the target types, which the schema already enumerates. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Lists comments (notes) on an issue, merge request, snippet or epic.' This gives a specific verb, a clear resource type, and the supported target types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_discussions or gitlab_create_note.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (to fetch comments on a specifiable target type) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like gitlab_list_discussions or provide any exclusions. The context is clear enough from the name and schema, but no additional guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with these. It adds minor context by mentioning all four actions (create/retry/cancel/delete) but does not disclose additional behaviors like permission requirements or side effects beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures all primary actions without wasting words. It is concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has multiple actions and five parameters, but the schema descriptions clarify conditional requirements (ref/variables for create, pipeline_id for retry/cancel/delete). The description provides a high-level summary; while it doesn't enumerate parameter dependencies, the schema compensates well. No output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema except summarizing that retry/cancel/delete apply to existing pipelines and create needs a ref. This is consistent with baseline 3 since the schema carries most semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: triggering a new pipeline or retrying/canceling/deleting an existing one. It uses a specific verb set and resource (pipeline), immediately distinguishing it from read-only pipeline tools like list_pipelines or get_pipeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for pipeline lifecycle actions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pipelines or generic API requests. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds useful context about the search scope (global/group/project) and entity types. However, it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination semantics, the role of the 'ref' parameter, or default scope behavior when no group/project is specified, leaving some behavioral details to the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb 'search' and the resource scope, then efficiently lists the searchable entity types. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview of what it searches and the available scoping. The schema covers parameter-specific details, and annotations confirm it is a safe read operation. It could mention pagination or global default behavior, but the combination of description, schema, and annotations gives enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all 9 parameters have individual descriptions that already explain their purpose and constraints. The tool description's mention of entity types mirrors the scope enum but does not add deeper parameter-level meaning. With the schema handling parameter semantics thoroughly, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for searching GitLab globally, by group, or by project, and enumerates the entity types it covers: projects, issues, merge requests, code blobs, commits, wiki, and notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or get individual resources, making its purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for cross-entity search, and the scope options (global, group, project) suggest when to use it, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over specific list or get tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The presence of a dedicated search tool among siblings makes it inferable, but explicit guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds that it returns a markdown snippet, which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like whether the upload is persistent, requires special permissions, or has rate limits. It is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the action and outcome without redundant wording. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple upload tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and return value. It lacks specific details about permission requirements or the distinction from repository file operations, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (file_path, filename, project_id). The description does not add extra parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: uploads a local file to the project's upload store, and specifies the outcome (returns markdown snippet for embedding). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_create_or_update_file that modify repository files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (uploading files for embedding in issues/MRs/comments) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitlab_create_or_update_file or gitlab_commit_files. No exclusions or alternate tool names are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response includes stats and can optionally include a diff, but does not mention truncation behavior, response format, or other behavioral details. It provides some value beyond annotations but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is perfectly concise. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and good annotations/schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains that the tool returns stats and optionally a diff, but without an output schema it does not describe the response structure in detail. For a read-only get operation, this is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description does not add much beyond the schema; it rephrases the include_diff behavior but does not clarify relationships like max_chars applying only when include_diff is true.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns a single commit with stats and optionally its diff. The verb 'get' matches the tool name, and 'one commit' distinguishes it from list/compare operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of retrieving a single commit is clear, and the 'one commit' phrasing implies use when a specific commit is needed rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like gitlab_list_commits or gitlab_compare.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations by explaining the nature of the returned data (threaded discussions, including code-review positions and resolved state). It does not contradict annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core value proposition without waste. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('threaded discussions') and adds relevant detail about code-review threads.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear idea of what is returned (threaded discussions, code-review positions, resolved state). However, it does not mention the required parameters (target_type, iid) or how pagination works, though these are covered in the schema. The description is minimally complete given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has high description coverage (86%), so the description does not need to explain parameters in detail. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents target_type, iid, pagination, and project_id fields adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title and description clearly indicate this tool lists discussions. The description specifies 'threaded discussions, including code-review threads with their file/line position and resolved state,' which provides a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from other discussion-related tools like reply_to_discussion or list_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool by mentioning code-review threads and their file/line position, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as gitlab_list_notes or gitlab_resolve_merge_request_thread. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-read-only but non-destructive operation, which aligns with the description's 'Posts a comment'. The description adds a useful behavioral tip about embedding screenshots via gitlab_upload_file, but does not disclose return behavior or side effects beyond the obvious write action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and supported target types. The second sentence is an actionable usage tip. No redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the main purpose and a useful cross-tool workflow. It does not explicitly mention required group_id for epics or project_id fallback, but those are present in the schema, so the description is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds slight value by mentioning markdown from gitlab_upload_file for the body parameter, but it does not compensate for the undocumented group_id or project_id fallback details, which remain in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Posts' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a comment' on various target types (issue, merge request, snippet, epic, commit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_update_note or gitlab_reply_to_discussion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on what targets it applies to, which helps the agent choose this tool for generic comment creation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to discussion-thread tools, so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by warning that deletion is irreversible on most instances. It also notes that deletion may be scheduled, which is a behavioral nuance not captured by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that delivers the core meaning and a key warning. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, two parameters, and existing annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: deletion action, scheduling nuance, and irreversibility. It lacks details about response behavior or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the provided structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters clearly: 'confirm' requires true and 'project_id' accepts an ID or URL-encoded path with a fallback. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('a project'), and mentions the nuance of scheduling deletion. It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that create or update projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for deleting a project but provides no explicit context about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It doesn't name any alternative tool for comparison, leaving usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns the tail by default, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The use of an em dash and direct language makes it efficient and front-loaded. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with good annotations and no output schema, this description covers purpose and key behavior (tail default). It lacks explicit mention of the response format (e.g., plain text), but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, with descriptions for project_id and tail_chars. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it mentions tail behavior but that is already captured in the tail_chars schema. It does not compensate for the undocumented job_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it downloads the trace/log of a CI job, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job_artifact (which fetches artifacts) and list_jobs (which lists jobs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'fastest way to find out why a pipeline failed' implies a clear use case, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives. It does not reference sibling tools or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the describe is not expected to repeat that. The description adds useful context by noting the diff is 'truncated to stay readable' and 'file by file', disclosing that output has size limits and a per-file structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral limit with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return type (code changes, file-by-file) and the truncation behavior. However, it does not specify the exact diff format or behavior when paths filter yields no results, which would be expected for a fully complete specification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 3 of 4 parameters, including the default for max_chars and the meaning of paths and project_id. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond schema, and merge_request_iid is self-explanatory despite lacking a schema description. The schema carries most semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'the actual code changes of a merge request, file by file', which precisely identifies the diff resource and distinguishes it from merge request metadata tools like gitlab_get_merge_request. The verb and scope are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is only implied: if you need code changes of an MR, this is the tool. There is no explicit statement about when to use it versus alternatives like gitlab_compare or gitlab_get_file, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context of validating against the project's context but does not disclose details like API calls, error reporting, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Validates CI configuration against the project's context before committing it.' It contains no fluff and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward lint tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, since there is no output schema, it could have briefly mentioned what the response includes (e.g., linting errors or success), but this is not a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (content, dry_run, project_id) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Validates' and names the resource as 'CI configuration' (with title confirming .gitlab-ci.yml). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on validation against 'the project's context,' which no other GitLab tool addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear context in 'before committing it,' implying this is a pre-commit validation step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, setting expectations for a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying the scope of the mutation (single vs. all pending todos), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and the conditional behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations—the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains the dual behavior and the schema documents the parameter, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full coverage with a 'description' for todo_id ('Todo id; omit to mark every todo as done'), matching the description exactly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('marks') and resource ('todo(s) done'), and distinguishes between two modes: marking a single todo when an id is provided, or all pending todos when omitted. This is appropriately specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_todos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a hint about usage by explaining the effect of omitting todo_id, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., gitlab_api_request). It implies usage for marking todos done but lacks clear when-not-to-use or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: it specifies the authenticated GET nature, and highlights response formatting ('Returns images as images and text as text'), which is not derivable from annotations alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: the verb, resource scope, examples, and return-behavior note. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, examples, and response types. It does not explicitly note limitations (e.g., unsupported content types) but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by giving concrete URL examples (job artifacts, raw files, avatars), helping agents understand what kinds of URLs are valid targets for the 'url' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Authenticated GET') and identifies the resource ('arbitrary URL on the GitLab instance'), with concrete examples (job artifacts, raw files, avatars). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gitlab_get_job_artifact or gitlab_get_file by being the generic URL-fetching tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a catch-all for any instance URL by listing examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus more specific siblings (e.g., gitlab_get_file, gitlab_get_job_artifact). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that a single image path returns a viewable image, hinting at response format. It does not discuss error handling or auth, but with minimal annotations this extra context earns a solid score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, 22 words, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only artifact download, the description is nearly complete with good annotations and schema coverage. It briefly mentions image return behavior, but could be more explicit about non-image artifact returns (e.g., archive download). Overall, sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes project_id and artifact_path well, providing 67% parameter coverage. The description does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema, though its artifact path examples (screenshots) implicitly reinforce what artifact_path accepts. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Downloads a CI artifact' with a direct verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_job_log or gitlab_job_action. The addition of the image path example (Playwright/Cypress screenshot, coverage badge) specifies a common use case, further clarifying scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: to download CI artifacts, especially image-like artifacts. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from job log retrieval or job control.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds value by specifying it scans both description and comments, covers issue/MR/epic, and returns ready-to-use URLs for gitlab_read_attachment. It does not contradict annotations, and the added detail goes beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's action, scope, and output without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (attached files/screenshots with URLs for gitlab_read_attachment). It covers the target types and scanning behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., none of the nuance about group_id being required for epics), but these are covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to act.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions scanning description/comments and targeting issue/MR/epic, which echoes parameter meanings but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool scans an issue, merge request, or epic and returns attached files/screenshots with ready-to-use URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_read_attachment (which reads a single attachment) or gitlab_upload_file (which adds attachments).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for discovering attachments on issues/MRs/epics and explicitly points to gitlab_read_attachment as the consumer of the returned URLs, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces a read-only search operation but adds little beyond the annotation, such as auth requirements or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-structured sentence delivers the essential function without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple search/list functionality, the description, schema, and annotations cover the essential context; however, it lacks detail on output format and exact search fields (e.g., email).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the roles of the otherwise undocumented 'username' and 'search' parameters, mapping them to 'username' and 'free text' respectively, which adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Searches' and identifies the resource as 'instance users', clearly distinguishing from gitlab_get_user and member list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding users by username or text query, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over gitlab_get_user or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that relative upload links and issue references are expanded to absolute URLs, which goes beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the primary function and a hint about its utility. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and schema covers parameters. The description explains the purpose and typical usage context. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., rendered HTML), which could be useful since there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described clearly. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why references are expanded, but the schema already covers parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Renders') and resource ('markdown'), with a concrete outcome ('expanded to absolute URLs'). It distinguishes itself from other GitLab tools by focusing on markdown rendering, not on CRUD operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear use case ('handy before downloading attachments') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. Context is present, but no direct comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by noting that comments and attachments are included by default and that attachments are URLs, which is useful contextual behavior not present in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two information-dense sentences: the first enumerates the returned fields, and the second gives a cross-tool instruction for viewing attachments. No redundant words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return content, and it does so thoroughly. It specifies what fields are included, mentions default behaviors, and points to the reading tool for attachments, making it complete for a read-only get operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The description clarifies that 'every comment' and 'every attached screenshot/file' correspond to include_notes and include_attachments defaults, but it doesn't add further syntax or format details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns a full issue including description, labels, assignees, milestone, and by default comments and attachment URLs. This specific enumeration differentiates it from siblings like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_get_merge_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need the complete issue with all comments and attachments, and provides a downstream pointer to gitlab_read_attachment. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like gitlab_list_issues or mention when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior: authentication requirement, conditional return formats (images as viewable, text as text, else base64). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the response shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return format details and a clear usage hint. No fluff or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description does well to explain return types and the tool's role. It covers authentication, format handling, and typical use cases. It could mention error behavior or size limits, but for this simple read operation the core context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the url parameter accepts both full and relative forms, and project_id has a fallback to GITLAB_PROJECT_ID, which enriches the schema's static field definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Downloads') and identifies the resource ('an attached file from GitLab'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file by stating 'This is how you look at screenshots pasted into issues, merge requests and comments' and describing the output formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use it: viewing screenshots/attachments from issues, merge requests, and comments. It implicitly distinguishes from repository file tools but does not explicitly exclude alternates like gitlab_download_url or gitlab_get_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context by specifying the exact data returned (user, URL, version) and its purpose. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying what the tool reveals about the connection setup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the return value, and ends with a clear usage tip. Every word contributes; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It is complete and self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter space. The description adds no parameter details, but with no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resources: authenticated user, GitLab instance URL, and instance version. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on the current user and instance config, not any specific project or resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this first to verify GITLAB_URL/GITLAB_TOKEN are wired correctly,' providing a clear when-to-use directive. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context of verification is explicit and sufficient for a simple read-only tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/amalychev/gitlab-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server