mcp-gitlab-crunchtools
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.4.1
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct by resource (projects, branches, MRs, issues, pipelines, labels, etc.) and action. Minor potential confusion between MR notes and MR discussions, but descriptions clarify that discussions are threaded comments with inline positions.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, with verbs like list, get, create, update, delete, retry, cancel, search, compare, and nouns clearly indicating the resource. The suffix '_tool' is uniform across all 63 tools.
Tool Count3/563 tools is quite high, but the server covers a broad GitLab API surface spanning projects, groups, MRs, issues, pipelines, repository files, labels, releases, milestones, wiki, users, and search. While heavy, it remains organized; the breadth justifies the count, though it borders on overwhelming.
Completeness4/5The toolset covers major GitLab workflows: project management, MR lifecycle with discussions, issues, CI/CD pipelines, repository file operations, labels, releases, milestones, wiki, and users. Obvious gaps include missing update/delete for snippets, wiki (update/delete), and milestone deletion, but core workflows are well covered.
Average 3.3/5 across 61 of 63 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under AGPL 3.0.
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.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
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
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to describe side effects or consequences, the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Create' without disclosing whether the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or impacts other project entities. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and directly communicates the core function without ambiguity.
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?
Despite the detailed schema, the description lacks essential context such as when to use the tool, behavioral implications, or any relationship to other label operations. Given the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and consequences.
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 provides complete descriptions for all five parameters (name, color, priority, project_id, description), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so it remains at the baseline score for high 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new label') within the context of a GitLab project, making its primary purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_labels or update_label, though it does not elaborate on label specifics.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use create_label versus update_label or list_labels. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would trigger its use.
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?
With no annotations, the description carried the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but only says 'Update an existing milestone.' It omits that state transitions (e.g., close/activate via state_event) are possible, and gives no indication of idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four words with no fluff and is instantly scannable. It is as concise as possible while remaining grammatical, earning a top score for efficiency.
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 7 parameters, 2 required, and no annotations, this description is under-specified. It doesn't mention that only provided fields are updated, what state_event does, or what the response contains. While an output schema exists, the description fails to add value for an API with non-trivial update semantics.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters, meeting the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but no additional clarification is strictly required. It's neutral, not additive.
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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing milestone' clearly. However, it largely restates the tool name and gives no details about what fields can be updated or side effects. It doesn't distinguish from sibling update tools beyond the subject.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_milestone_tool or list_milestones_tool, nor mention of partial update semantics. There is no context that would help an agent decide when this is the right choice.
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?
There are no annotations and the description does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral details. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 extremely concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words or fluff. It effectively communicates the core purpose in a single 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?
The description lacks important context such as the return format, whether it is a diff or commit list, and any caveats like merge-base behavior. This incomplete information may leave users unsure about the tool's output or side effects.
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 descriptions for all parameters (project_id, from_ref, to_ref, straight), so the coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema, but the schema itself is clear.
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 (compare) and the objects (branches, tags, commits), distinguishing it from other tools that list or create resources. However, it does not specify the nature of the comparison (e.g., diff, merge-base), which leaves some ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_commits or get_mr_changes. The description lacks any contextual direction 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.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers no information about side effects, permission requirements, field constraints, or how partial updates behave. The description essentially restates the tool's name and provides no additional behavioral transparency.
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 only one sentence, making it very concise. However, it is under-specified, lacking essential detail about update behavior. It is front-loaded but at the cost of completeness, so it is acceptable but not exceptional.
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 (mutation operation) and the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens to unset fields, whether at least one optional field must be provided, or any special behavior. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter 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 states the tool updates an existing label in a GitLab project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_label_tool and delete_label_tool. However, it lacks any additional scoping or specifics beyond the verb 'update', so it's clear but not exemplary.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behaviors. It only states 'Create a new file' without mentioning potential overwrites, branch requirements, commit implications, or error conditions, offering almost no 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, concise sentence without unnecessary filler. It perfectly satisfies the requirement of being short and to the point.
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 moderately complex (creating a file in a repository), yet the description omits essential context such as required vs. optional parameters, relationship to sibling tools, return values, or typical usage flow. It offers insufficient information for an agent to use the tool effectively in a wider workflow.
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 descriptions cover all six parameters (branch, content, encoding, file_path, project_id, commit_message) with straightforward definitions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond these, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and the object (a new file in a GitLab repository). It effectively communicates the core purpose, though it does not elaborate on distinguishing it from related tools like update_file_tool.
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 (e.g., update_file_tool, get_file_tool). It lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases, making it hard for an agent to choose this tool appropriately.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The single word 'Create' implies a write operation, but the description discloses no side effects, idempotency semantics, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate submissions. It provides only the barest indication of 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 a single, efficiently worded sentence with no fluff or redundancy. Its main weakness is being almost too terse, bordering on under-specification, but strictly in terms of conciseness it wastes no 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?
For a simple create-with-3-parameters tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, given the dense sibling context with similar note-creation tools, a sentence clarifying this creates a standalone note versus a discussion or MR note would make it 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 all three parameters (body, issue_iid, project_id) having meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but since the schema already documents everything, the baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Create a note (comment) on an issue'), which is understandable. However, it essentially restates the tool's name and provides no differentiation from siblings like create_mr_note_tool, which is a missed opportunity given the many similar note/discussion 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_mr_note_tool or list_issue_notes_tool. With 60+ sibling tools, explicit context on when an agent should invoke this specific tool (e.g., to comment on an issue rather than an MR) is absent.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action without any information about return value, errors, permissions, or side effects (though it is a read operation). With no annotations, the description is insufficient; it does not explain what happens if the slug is invalid or what the response contains.
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, which is appropriately front-loaded and free of fluff. It likely earns its place, though it could include more detail. It is not verbose, so it scores high, but not perfect because it lacks the extra information that would make it truly helpful.
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 is a simple getter with an output schema, complex behavior is not expected. However, with no annotations and minimal description, the burden is on the description to explain what the response includes and any potential errors. The output schema likely provides return structure, but the description does not mention that or any prerequisites like project existence, so completeness is low.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema ('URL slug of the wiki page' and 'Project ID or path'). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but given high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the format of the slug or project_id.
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 'Get a single wiki page by slug.' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (a single wiki page) and the key identifier (slug). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_wiki_pages_tool' which lists pages, and 'create_wiki_page_tool' which creates. However, it does not explicitly mention the project_id context, but that is covered by the schema.
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. Given many sibling tools, it is ambiguous whether to use this for reading a page versus list_wiki_pages_tool or get_file_tool. No exclusions or comparisons 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, creation limits, or any post-creation behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
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—a single sentence—but it borders on being under-specified. It avoids wasted words, yet it lacks the depth expected for a tool with 10 parameters. It's not verbose, but it also doesn't provide enough structure or front-loading of key 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?
Given the tool has 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not mention any constraints, prerequisites, or post-conditions beyond what the schema states. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves out important operational context like when creation fails or what happens to the source branch by default.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific explanation beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to; the schema thoroughly documents each parameter. The description earns the baseline score without exceeding it.
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 ('Create a new merge request') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_merge_request. However, it lacks any context about which project or how it contrasts with other MR-related tools, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.
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 (e.g., update_merge_request, create_issue). There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing an existing source branch or project access, even though the schema notes the source branch must exist. The description provides no usage context.
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?
No annotations are present, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or error behavior. It lacks transparency about the operation's implications.
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 with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly conveys the tool's purpose.
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 minimal and lacks context about the expected response or potential errors. While the schema covers parameters, it omits outcomes of the operation, making it incomplete for a full 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?
The schema already includes descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Following the guideline, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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: creating a new wiki page in a GitLab project. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that list or get wiki pages.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without usage context.
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?
With no annotations to rely on, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, effects on related resources, or potential side effects. It only states the basic action without elaborating on consequences or prerequisites.
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 sole sentence is concise and grammatically clear, containing no filler or redundancy. It effectively communicates the core purpose in the fewest possible words.
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 seven parameters and two required fields, the description offers no extra context about typical usage, parameter relationships, or edge cases. An agent without prior knowledge might misuse optional parameters like labels or assignee_ids, as nothing beyond the schema guides 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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description need not repeat them. However, it also provides no additional semantic hints (e.g., how labels should be formatted or that assignee_ids are numeric user IDs), which would have added value.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('a new issue in a GitLab project'), distinguishing it from related tools like update_issue_tool or list_issues_tool. However, it does not add contextual details (e.g., scope, default behavior) beyond what the tool name implies, so it misses the top score for differentiation.
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., create_merge_request_tool) or any prerequisites. The description gives no context about typical use cases or exclusions, meeting only the 'no guidance' criterion.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List notes (comments)' only restates the operation without addressing pagination, sorting defaults, read-only nature, or any side effects, offering minimal additional insight beyond the tool name.
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 wasted words, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It is slightly under-specified but structurally efficient, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to lack of enriching details.
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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, pagination, sorting) and the presence of an output schema, the minimal description is adequate but not comprehensive. It does not mention the distinction between notes and discussions or any important context, landing at a 3.
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 documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter context, but per guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not conflict.
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 'List notes (comments) on a merge request.' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'notes (comments) on a merge request.' It is specific and understandable, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_mr_discussions_tool or list_issue_notes_tool.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to similar tools like list_mr_discussions_tool.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only states 'List jobs', implying a read operation, but it doesn't mention if it returns a paginated list, what happens when no jobs match, or any rate limits. With an output schema present and no annotations, the description is too brief to fully inform the agent.
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 is front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary details, which is efficient, but it could be slightly more informative 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 presence of an output schema and detailed parameter schema, the description could suffice, but it lacks guidance on usage and behavior. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not fully complete for an AI agent to understand all nuances (e.g., pagination, scope filtering highlights).
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 description covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including default values and scope options. The description doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but doesn't elevate it.
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' and the resource 'jobs for a CI/CD pipeline'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pipelines_tool and get_pipeline_tool by focusing on jobs. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., all jobs in the pipeline) compared to related tools like get_job_log_tool.
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. It doesn't mention that it lists jobs within a pipeline, while get_job_log_tool is for fetching a specific job's log, or that scope filtering is available. This is a missed opportunity for clearer differentiation.
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?
No annotations are present, and the description discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or authentication requirements. For a listing operation, it's safe to assume read-only, but this is not stated.
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 with no redundant content. It is highly concise 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 simple list operation, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return format or pagination details (though parameters imply them), nor does it clarify whether it returns all users or only active ones (the 'active' default suggests filtering). This is sufficient for a basic tool but lacks depth.
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 descriptions for all five parameters (page, active, search, per_page, username), achieving high schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List GitLab users' clearly states the verb and resource, and the tool name reinforces it. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_user_tool (single user) and get_current_user_tool, though it could explicitly mention pagination/filtering.
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 get_user_tool or search_global_tool. The description lacks context like 'use this to retrieve multiple users with filters'.
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?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that the operation is read-only, or any potential rate limits or performance implications. The tool is search-like and likely safe, but the description provides no explicit statement about side effects or restrictions.
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, containing only one short sentence. It states a clear purpose without fluff. However, it might be too sparse to capture usage nuances, but it does earn its place by defining the core action.
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 presence of a global search sibling (search_global_tool) and many list tools, the description does not provide enough context to guide tool selection. It doesn't mention output schema details or any limitations. The output schema exists but the description doesn't help the agent understand what results to expect or how pagination works.
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 100% field coverage, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, defaults, or special cases like pagination behavior. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already does 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 clearly states the action ('search') and the scope ('within a specific GitLab project'), which distinguishes it from the global search tool. However, it doesn't specify the search scope or types of results, leaving some ambiguity about what 'search' entails beyond the schema.
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 like search_global_tool or list_* tools. The description implies project-scoped search, but doesn't explicitly contrast it with broader searches or provide exclusion criteria. The user must infer when to choose this over its 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Update an existing issue.' It does not disclose whether omitted fields are left unchanged, how null values are interpreted, whether the update is partial or full, or any permission or side-effect considerations.
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 filler or redundant content. It is maximally concise, though it sacrifices detail, which is 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?
This is a mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no contextual information. The output schema exists, but the description still fails to communicate partial-update behavior, null semantics, or state transitions like close/reopen, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 (update) and resource (existing issue), which distinguishes it from create_issue_tool and get_issue_tool. However, it does not elaborate on which fields can be updated or that it is a partial update, so it stops short of a fully detailed purpose 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like create_issue_tool or get_issue_tool, nor does it clarify scenarios where this tool should be preferred.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only says 'Update'. It does not mention how unspecified fields are handled, whether state transitions are possible, or any side effects. Given the tool's complexity, this is a significant gap.
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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action, though it could benefit from 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite 11 parameters and an output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It does not clarify update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), mention special parameters like state_event or remove_source_branch, or provide operational context. The description is inadequate 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's brief descriptions (e.g., 'MR title', 'Comma-separated label names') are adequate for basic understanding. This meets the baseline for high 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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing merge request', which distinguishes it from creation and listing tools. It is unambiguous, but does not elaborate on scope or specific fields beyond what the schema provides.
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 implies usage for modifying an existing merge request but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_merge_request_tool or get_merge_request_tool. It lacks any context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description should disclose side effects (e.g., project creation modifies state, may require permissions) but only states the action without any behavioral or safety details.
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 with no unnecessary words, 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 description lacks context about prerequisites, return values, or the effect of parameters like namespace_id or initialize_with_readme. Without output schema provided, it is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, 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 action (create) and the resource (GitLab project), distinguishing it from other create operations like create_file or create_branch.
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, such as creating a project in a specific namespace or initializing with a README. The description is too minimal to inform 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a discussion is created, with no mention of permissions, whether a position/diff context is required, how the discussion is returned, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it immediately scannable. Under-specification is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.
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 is simple, has a full input schema, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, without annotations or usage guidance regarding discussion versus note semantics, the description is only minimally viable. It covers the basic action but leaves contextual ambiguity around when and how to use it.
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 input schema already documents body, project_id, and merge_request_iid. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the general action. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new discussion on a merge request.' It clearly identifies the action and target. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_mr_note_tool, which could be confused on whether a 'discussion' is a thread versus a note.
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 over alternatives like create_mr_note_tool or list_mr_discussions_tool. It does not state whether discussions differ from notes or whether this is the correct tool for starting a new thread. Usage context is entirely implied by the name and target resource.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a note' without mentioning any side effects, permissions, interactions with MR state, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 directly and efficiently conveys the action. No wasted words or redundant information.
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 output schema and full parameter coverage help, but the description lacks guidance on how notes differ from discussions, which is critical given the sibling tool landscape. It is adequate for a simple tool but misses key contextual differentiators.
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 three parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only clarifying that a note is a comment. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('note on a merge request'), clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool create_mr_discussion_tool, which is a closely related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_mr_discussion_tool or list_mr_notes_tool. It simply states the action without any context on selection criteria or 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only adds the parenthetical '(trace)' without mentioning side effects, access requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. Since it's a 'get' operation one might infer read-only, but the absence of annotations and minimal description leaves too much burden on the agent; it doesn't even clarify if the job log is available immediately after job completion.
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 essential function without any redundant words. It's perfectly scoped for a tool with only two parameters and no complex behavior; every word earns its place.
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 low complexity (two simple parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema present), the description is almost sufficient. However, the absence of any behavioral notes (e.g., whether the log is raw text or JSON) or usage context is slightly lacking, especially since no annotations fill that gap. It's 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 description coverage is 100% (job_id and project_id both have basic descriptions), so the description isn't required to compensate. However, it also adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; there's no note about formats, defaults, or examples. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high 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 'Get the log (trace) output of a CI/CD job' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('log (trace) output') and domain ('CI/CD job'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retry_job or delete_job by focusing on logs, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with a tool like get_job if one existed. It's slightly less explicit than a 5 because it doesn't mention any exclusions or alternative 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of context like 'use this after a pipeline job completes.' The description merely states what it does without any usage context or exclusions, providing no help for an agent deciding between tools in this large CI/CD sibling set.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'list' implying a read-only operation, but adds no detail about pagination behavior, default state (opened), rate limits, or the nature of results. This is a significant gap for a tool interacting with a remote API, warranting a 2.
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 with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is immediately scannable. There is zero waste, perfectly exemplifying conciseness.
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 moderate complexity with 9 parameters including pagination and filtering, the description is adequate as a bare-minimum statement but misses opportunities to note default state ('opened'), query behavior, or relationship to other MR tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the absence of usage context holds this back from a higher score.
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 input schema fully documents all 9 parameters, including types, defaults, and descriptions. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline score of 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The description does not need to repeat schema information, so a 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 clearly states the action (list), the resource (merge requests), and the scope (GitLab project). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_merge_request_tool, which likely retrieves a single MR. It achieves clarity without sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.
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 list_mr_notes_tool or get_merge_request_tool. There is no mention of default filters, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left without any context for selection, meriting a score of 2.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic purpose. It does not mention pagination behavior, the effect of with_content, or the read-only nature, though these are partially implied by the schema. No extra behavioral context is provided.
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 extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the verb and object immediately.
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 a simple list operation with an output schema and fully described parameters. However, the description lacks usage context, such as when to choose this over get_wiki_page_tool or how pagination works beyond schema defaults. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that the schema and siblings partially fill.
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 schema documents all four parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 (list) and resource (wiki pages) scoped to a GitLab project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wiki_page_tool and create_wiki_page_tool. It does not mention optional behaviors like including content, but the core purpose is 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly mention that get_wiki_page_tool should be used for a single page or that this is for enumeration. The usage context is only implied by the tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a precondition ('running') but does not explain behavior for non-running jobs (e.g., completed, pending, failed), idempotency, error behavior, or side effects. For a destructive action like cancellation, the lack of such context is a significant gap.
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 admirably concise at six words, leading with the verb 'Cancel' and front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place, keeping the description tight and easily scannable, though it leaves little room for additional context.
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, state-changing action with an output schema available, the description suffices for typical use cases. It does not need to explain returns. However, the 'running' state caveat introduces ambiguity about handling of jobs in other states, which is not addressed. Slightly more completeness around state behavior would make it more robust.
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 both project_id ('Project ID or path') and job_id ('Job ID'). The description's phrase 'CI/CD job' reinforces that job_id refers to a CI/CD job, but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters clearly.
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 'Cancel a running CI/CD job' uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and identifies a clear resource ('CI/CD job'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It communicates the state-based intent ('running') which adds nuance not present in the tool name alone, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like cancel_pipeline_tool beyond the obvious noun.
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: when the goal is to cancel a job. However, there is no explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., retry_job_tool, delete_job_tool) or exclusions (e.g., 'For pipelines, use cancel_pipeline_tool'). The usage context is clear enough for a simple cancellation but relies on the agent to infer it from naming conventions among 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?
Since annotations are entirely absent, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It truthfully states the core side effect (creating a snippet) and adds the 'in a GitLab project' scope, but it doesn't mention permissions required, idempotency, or implications (e.g., snippet becomes visible to project members). The behavior is disclosed correctly but not deeply.
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?
A single efficient, front-loaded sentence that communicates action, resource, and scope without waste. It could earn a 5 only by adding a bit more useful info, but for the claimed purpose it's well-proportioned.
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 is a simple create operation with 4 required params and an output schema present, so the description gets partial credit for not needing to explain returns. However, there's no note about error behavior (e.g., duplicate titles, non-existent projects) or how visibility interacts with project visibility, making the context 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 description coverage is 100% — all six parameters have clear descriptions including an example file name and a default visibility value. The description adds nothing 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Create a new snippet in a GitLab project' uses a specific verb (Create) and resource (snippet) and is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_snippets_tool. The description clearly scopes the operation to GitLab projects but doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it just misses 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?
There is no guidance on prerequisites, when to choose this over similar create_* tools, or under what project conditions a snippet can be created. With 14 sibling create_* tools and no alternatives mentioned, the agent gets no explicit direction beyond what the tool name alone conveys.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that only artifacts and trace log are deleted, not the job itself, which is useful. However, it does not disclose permanence, permission requirements, or potential effects on running jobs.
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 of nine words, front-loaded and free of redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
Although the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description lacks usage context and behavioral warnings for a destructive operation. It does not explain when to use or what permissions are needed, making it incomplete for a delete action without annotations.
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 both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional 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 states that the tool deletes a CI/CD job's artifacts and trace log, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_job_tool and retry_job_tool by specifying deletion of artifacts/log rather than job state.
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 indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_job_tool or retry_job_tool, nor any prerequisites or 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not mention any caveats such as authentication requirements, response structure, error conditions, or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the verb implies.
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 redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose. While extremely short, it is appropriately sized for a simple get operation, though it might have earned a 5 with additional useful context.
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 is a simple get with an output schema present, so return format is covered. However, with no annotations and only a two-word description, the description fails to provide any usage context or behavioral nuances. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward retrieval but lacks the additional context that would make it complete (e.g., when to prefer this over list_issues_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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by referencing 'IID' in 'Get a single issue by its IID', which reinforces the purpose of issue_iid but adds nothing about project_id or their relationship. It does not compensate beyond the schema but is not deficient.
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: 'Get a single issue', identifying the resource (issue) and specifying the scope ('single by its IID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues_tool, which retrieves multiple issues, and aligns with the tool's name and required parameters.
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 list_issues_tool (for multiple issues) or update_issue_tool (for modifications). The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and schema, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, potential rate limits, or what exactly 'changes' includes (e.g., file diffs, stats). The description is too sparse to offer transparency beyond the obvious.
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 filler. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could potentially include more context without sacrificing conciseness.
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 is straightforward, but the description lacks any context about what the diff output contains or any constraints. However, since an output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere. Given the simplicity and good schema coverage, a moderate score is appropriate, though more context would be helpful.
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% (both parameters have descriptions: 'Project ID or path' and 'Merge request internal ID'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 the action ('Get the changes') and the resource ('for a merge request'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_merge_request_tool (which likely returns MR metadata) and list_merge_requests_tool (which lists MRs) by focusing specifically on diffs.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or context. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings. No alternatives are referenced.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting content, creating a new commit, or requiring specific permissions. It also doesn't mention what happens if the file doesn't exist or if the branch is protected.
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 is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could benefit from a brief note on prerequisites or side effects 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 tool has 6 parameters, 5 required, and an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a straightforward update operation. However, it lacks context on error conditions, commit behavior, or how it interacts with branches, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but behavioral context is thin.
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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given high coverage. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., encoding affects content interpretation) beyond what the schema already states.
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 updates an existing file in a GitLab repository, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_file_tool and get_file_tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it requires the file to already exist.
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 updating files but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_file_tool or other file operations. It lacks context on prerequisites like branch existence or file existence, and no alternatives are mentioned.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'Create' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, required permissions, failure behavior if the branch already exists, or whether this operation alters repository state in ways the agent should expect.
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 one short, grammatically complete sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and does not repeat schema field details.
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 a clear input schema and output schema, so technical parameter details are covered. However, given the absence of annotations, the description lacks important context such as branch naming rules, permission requirements, or how this differs from similar create operations, leaving it only minimally adequate.
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% for all three required parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond what is already listed, which is acceptable but not valuable.
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 a precise action ('Create a new branch') with a clear resource ('GitLab repository'). It is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like delete_branch_tool, list_project_branches_tool, or create_merge_request_tool.
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, nor any mention of prerequisites like permissions, or when not to use it. The description merely restates the action without providing decision guidance.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only states the action and omits important behavioral details such as tag creation, required permissions, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 with no redundant words; it is front-loaded and immediately states the operation. Every word earns its place.
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 input schema fully documents all parameters and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description alone provides only the basic action and lacks usage context, though the schema compensates for parameter semantics.
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%, and parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., tag_name is 'created if it doesn't exist'). The main description adds no parameter-level information, 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('release for a GitLab project'), making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_releases_tool and get_release_tool.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., tag must exist or be created) or exclusions. The description is a bare action statement with no contextual 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it lists notes; it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, output shape (though an output schema exists), or any potential side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the purpose, making it appropriately sized 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?
With an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. However, it lacks any mention of pagination defaults, sort behavior, or limitations, though these are covered by the schema. It does not add contextual completeness beyond the minimal definition, but it is not incomplete enough to impede usage.
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 6 parameters are individually documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 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 'List notes (comments) on an issue' clearly states the action (list) and resource (issue notes/comments), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mr_notes_tool (for merge requests) and create_issue_note_tool (for creation).
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 exclusions, prerequisites, or cases where another tool (e.g., list_mr_notes_tool) would be more appropriate. The description is purely a statement of function without usage context.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the verb 'List', it does not mention pagination behavior, default state filter, potential errors, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves the agent to rely on the schema for behavior hints.
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 immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or extraneous detail. It is appropriately front-loaded.
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 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers the basic action. It does not mention pagination/filtering nuances, though the schema fills that gap. It is adequate but not rich enough to fully support an agent selecting this tool among many project-related siblings without additional reasoning.
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 (project_id, page, state, search, per_page) are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, meeting the baseline of 3 for high 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List milestones for a GitLab project.' It identifies the verb (list), resource (milestones), and scope (project). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_milestone_tool and update_milestone_tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.
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 used for retrieving milestones from a GitLab project, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. The usage context is derived from the name and description rather than stated directly.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'list' without explicitly stating that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination limits, sorting behavior, or error conditions. The lack of any side-effect or safety disclosure is a notable 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 sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes to the purpose. Effectively minimal.
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 is simple (list operation) and the schema is fully documented, so the description can be short. However, it omits any contextual hints about pagination, sorting, or comparison with get_release_tool. While not fatally incomplete, it does not actively guide the agent beyond the bare statement.
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% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it does not explain parameter relationships or non-obvious usage. It neither helps nor hurts 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 the verb (list) and resource (releases) with the scope (for a GitLab project). It distinguishes from get_release_tool by using 'list' (plural) and from create_release_tool by the verb. The action is unambiguous and easily separated from siblings.
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 get_release_tool or list_milestones_tool. It does not mention prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions. Without any context, an agent has to infer usage solely from the name.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as the read-only nature, potential rate limits, or handling of pagination. The description falls short of providing meaningful 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, clear sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise while still being informative.
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 is relatively simple with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits any mention of pagination behavior or the response structure (even though the schema exists), leaving some gaps for a 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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, nor does it need to.
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 'List snippets for a GitLab project' clearly specifies the action (list) and the resource (snippets) scoped to a project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_snippet_tool. It is 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 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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain pagination behavior or when to choose this 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks explicit disclosure of side effects (e.g., permanent deletion, potential dependencies). It only says 'delete', which implies destructiveness but does not elaborate on consequences or reversibility.
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 extraneous information, directly conveying 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?
For a simple delete operation with well-described parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, but that is not required since an output schema exists.
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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('branch' and 'project_id'), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 'delete' and the target resource 'branch from a GitLab repository', distinguishing it from other branch-related tools like create, get, or list.
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 delete operation versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites for deletion. The description only states the action without context.
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?
No annotations are provided, and the description only repeats the action without disclosing consequences. It does not state that deletion is permanent, whether it affects associated issues/MRs, or if special permission is needed.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the action and target. No wasted words or redundant details.
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 destructive mutation tool, but the description omits crucial context like irreversibility, side effects, and authorization. The output schema may cover return values, but the description should compensate for missing annotations with behavioral 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both label_id and project_id have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a label from a GitLab project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_labels, create_label, and update_label by focusing on removal.
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 but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like project/label existence, permission requirements, or when to prefer this over update_label or create_label, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, recursion defaults, ref/path defaults, or read-only behavior, leaving important execution traits undisclosed beyond what the schema enumerates.
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 with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with six parameters, so it earns a high but not perfect conciseness score.
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 schema and output schema cover the parameter mechanics and return shape, but the description omits usage guidance and behavioral details like pagination or default branch behavior. It is minimally viable for a simple list tool but leaves gaps for agents unfamiliar with GitLab conventions.
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 already well-documented with defaults and meanings. The description adds no parameter-level insight beyond the schema, which is acceptable under 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('repository tree') with a clarifying parenthetical ('files and directories'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects_tool or get_file_tool, which address different 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 description implies usage for browsing repository contents but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, mention prerequisites, or provide exclusions. It is understandable but lacks the explicit guidance expected for a well-documented tool.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic mutation action without mentioning permissions, side effects, idempotency, or any constraints beyond the input 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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, effectively conveying the tool's purpose in minimal 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?
For a simple create operation with an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks any contextual details about when to use it, preconditions, or potential side effects, which would be expected given the absence of annotations.
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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The schema already documents title, due_date, start_date, description, and project_id, making the description's lack of parameter elaboration acceptable.
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 ('Create'), the resource ('a new milestone'), and the scope ('in a GitLab project'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from the sibling update_milestone_tool by emphasizing 'new'.
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 use case is implied by the tool name and description: use it when a new milestone is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other milestone-related tools, nor any exclusionary criteria.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, whether projects are included by default (even though the with_projects param exists), or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple get tool, front-loading the core action and target.
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 is relatively simple, and an output schema exists which likely explains the return structure. However, the description omits the behavior controlled by with_projects (i.e., whether projects are included). Given the explicit parameter, this is a notable gap. The description is adequate for basic use but does not fully cover the tool's capabilities.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'by ID or path' but that information is already in the schema's group_id parameter description. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for with_projects either. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 is specific: 'Get GitLab group details by ID or path.' It clearly states the verb (Get), resource (group details), and provides a method (ID or path). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_groups_tool (which lists groups) and get_project_tool (which gets project details).
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 (when you need details of a specific group) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on choosing this over list_groups_tool or get_group_projects_tool, but the context is clear enough for a basic get operation.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states that it lists issues, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default sort order, potential errors if the project is not found, or that it only retrieves a limited number of issues per page. The schema's default values are not referenced, leaving the agent without insight into the tool's operational 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, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the essential purpose without redundancy. This level of conciseness is appropriate for a straightforward list operation and earns a high score for efficiency.
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?
Although the output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, the description lacks context about usage scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., project existence), or the breadth of filtering capabilities. For a tool with ten optional parameters, the description should hint at the rich filtering options to guide the agent, but it remains minimal. Given the schema fills significant gaps, a score of 3 reflects adequacy without being comprehensive.
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 10 parameters are individually documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. According to the calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully describes parameters, and this description does not enhance that understanding.
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 'List issues for a GitLab project' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (issues for a project). It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue_tool (single issue) or create_issue_tool (mutation) by specifying listing context, 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing issues but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_project_tool or list_merge_requests_tool. It does not mention exclusion criteria or alternative tools, so the agent must infer the context from the tool name and parameters.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new pipeline or updates the job), requirements (e.g., authentication, project permissions), or failure conditions. The single sentence leaves significant uncertainty about what actually happens when invoked.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. There is zero verbosity or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and easy to scan for an agent.
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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and that an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context such as prerequisites (job must be in a failed state, which is implied but not explicit) or post-conditions (e.g., whether a new job is spawned). It does not cover all scenarios that an agent might need to decide 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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions ('Job ID' and 'Project ID or path'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—for instance, it does not clarify the format of project_id (path vs. numeric) or any constraints on job_id. Thus, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 'Retry a specific failed CI/CD job.' It uses a specific verb 'Retry' with a well-defined object ('specific failed CI/CD job'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_pipeline_tool (which retries entire pipelines) and cancel_job_tool/delete_job_tool (which affect jobs differently). The inclusion of 'failed' narrows the scope precisely.
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 by stating the action on a specific failed job, but does not explicitly differentiate it from retry_pipeline_tool or mention when not to use it (e.g., if the job is not failed). No alternatives are referenced, leaving the context to be inferred from the name and sibling list.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retry all failed jobs' is a mutation operation, but the description does not disclose side effects, preconditions (e.g., required permissions), what happens to non-failed jobs, or whether a new pipeline is created. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating tool.
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 filler. Every word adds value: it names the verb, the target (failed jobs), and the scope (CI/CD pipeline).
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 simple 2-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutating operation with no annotations or usage guidance, it lacks behavioral context and alternative differentiation. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
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 fully documents both parameters (`project_id` and `pipeline_id`) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. The schema does the heavy lifting, and the description merely restates the action, landing at 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 uses a specific verb ('Retry') and a specific resource ('all failed jobs in a CI/CD pipeline'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `retry_job_tool`, which retries a single job rather than all failed jobs in a 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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as `retry_job_tool`, `cancel_pipeline_tool`, or `create_pipeline_tool`. There is no explicit context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It simply states 'Cancel a running CI/CD pipeline' without mentioning side effects such as cancellation of associated jobs, irreversibility, required permissions, or idempotency. Given this is a destructive operation, the description is notably underspecified and fails to disclose important 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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. This is appropriately concise for a simple action 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?
The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return-value documentation isn't needed. However, given the lack of annotations and the destructive nature of the operation, the description provides insufficient context about when to use it (e.g., only for running pipelines, not for retries) and what happens after cancellation. It fails to address potential pitfalls, making it incomplete for an agent to safely 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions ('Project ID or path' and 'Pipeline ID'). The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting; no additional value is added by the description.
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: 'Cancel a running CI/CD pipeline.' It uses a specific verb ('Cancel') and a clear resource ('CI/CD pipeline'), and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like retry_pipeline_tool, delete_pipeline_tool, or cancel_job_tool. The purpose is immediately understandable without ambiguity.
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 indicates the tool is for cancelling a *running* pipeline, which implies it should not be used for already completed or failed pipelines. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., cancel_job_tool for individual jobs). While the context is clear, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, so it doesn't meet the top bar.
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create (trigger)' signals a side-effecting write operation, but it does not explain asynchronous triggering behavior, permissions needed, or downstream effects such as starting CI jobs.
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 a clear verb and object, containing no filler or redundant details. This length is appropriate for a simple two-parameter 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?
Given the small input schema, complete parameter documentation, and existing output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks only explicit side-effect and permissions caveats, which lower it from a perfect completeness score.
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 documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including 'ref' default 'main' and 'project_id' as a project ID or path. The description adds no additional parameter nuance, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create (trigger)') and the resource ('a new CI/CD pipeline'). It distinguishes this creation tool from sibling pipeline lifecycle tools such as retry_pipeline_tool, cancel_pipeline_tool, and delete_pipeline_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 word 'new' implies this is for triggering a fresh pipeline rather than retrying or canceling an existing one, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get a single repository branch') and adds nothing about error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects (even though it's read-only). It doesn't mention what happens if the branch does not exist or if the project_id is invalid, leaving the agent without critical execution 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 declarative sentence with no redundancy, filler, or irrelevant detail. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.
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 (2 params, read-only, output schema provided) and the rich schema descriptions, the description is functionally complete. It accurately conveys the tool's purpose without needing to restate schema details. However, in the context of many sibling tools, a brief note on when to use this versus listing branches could improve decision-making, though it is not strictly necessary for a basic 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage: both branch and project_id have descriptive comments ('Branch name', 'Project ID or path'). The description adds zero parameter-specific information, but since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional meaning is provided 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 'Get a single repository branch' clearly states the action (get) and resource (single repository branch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_branches_tool (which retrieves multiple) and create/delete branch tools (mutations). The word 'single' explicitly sets it apart, making the purpose 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 description implies usage for retrieving one branch but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention list_project_branches_tool for listing all branches or note any prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough that usage is implied, but without explicit alternatives or exclusions, it only meets the baseline.
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?
注释未提供，描述仅简单说明'列出项目'，未披露任何行为细节，如分页、排序、权限要求或对资源的影响。虽然参数模式覆盖了分页等，但描述本身没有补充行为信息，对于无注释的工具，该描述承担的责任未完成。
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?
描述仅有一句话，简洁且直接点明核心功能，没有冗余内容。虽然缺乏结构化组织（如列表或段落），但作为一句简短说明，效率高。
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?
工具包含8个参数和输出模式，但描述仅提供最基本信息。尽管参数模式详细，描述未提及分页、过滤、子组等能力，也未说明典型使用场景。描述勉强覆盖核心功能，但对于一个拥有丰富模式参数的列表工具，描述可以更详尽，但未达到严重不足的程度。
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?
输入模式对所有8个参数提供了高覆盖率（100%）的描述，包括默认值和说明，因此描述无需额外解释参数。模式已承担主要解释责任，描述未添加新的语义信息，达到基线3分。
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?
描述明确说明了工具功能：列出GitLab组内的项目，动词'list'加上资源'projects within a GitLab group'，与兄弟工具list_projects_tool（可能列出所有项目）形成区分，并具体限定在组范围内。
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?
描述提供了明确的上下文（仅限组内项目），但未明确提及何时使用该工具而非其他替代工具（如list_projects_tool），也没有排除条件。但工具名称和描述已隐含使用场景，给予4分。
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'accessible by the API token' conveys auth scope, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether subgroups are included, or any rate-limit considerations. The behavior is straightforward enough for a list tool, but not richly transparent.
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 filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning.
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 a fully documented schema and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states the resource and access scope, though it could benefit from a brief note on pagination or relationship to sibling tools.
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 schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not value-adding.
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 ('List') and resource ('GitLab groups') with a clear scope ('accessible by the API token'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_group_tool (single group) and list_group_projects_tool (projects within a group).
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_group_tool is for a single group or that list_group_projects_tool is for projects within a group, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List labels,' which is minimally informative about a safe read operation; it omits pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, or any potential side effects. The description adds little beyond the tool 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?
A single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
This is a simple list operation with a comprehensive input schema and an output schema present. The description, though sparse, is sufficient when combined with the structured schemas. It could benefit from noting pagination defaults or read-only nature, but those are already inferable from the schema and tool name.
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 100% description coverage for all four parameters, including defaults and types. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not detract.
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 ('List') and specifies the resource ('labels') and scope ('for a GitLab project'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_label_tool, update_label_tool, and delete_label_tool, and from other list tools targeting different 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 description implies this tool is for retrieving labels in a GitLab project, which is the intended use case. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, relying on common sense.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning whether it is read-only, effects on the system, pagination behavior, or error conditions. It relies on the schema for parameter details.
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 redundancy, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word is purposeful.
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 an output schema and 100% parameter coverage in the schema, so the minimal description is largely sufficient for a simple list operation, though it does not mention pagination or filtering capabilities explicitly, which are implied by the 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context to the parameters, so it meets the baseline without extra 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 specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'repository branches' for a GitLab project, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_branch_tool (singular) that fetch a single branch.
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 branches but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get_project_branch_tool for a specific branch, nor any exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, default branch usage, or potential access requirements. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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 states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.
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 schema is rich and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. The only notable gap is the lack of usage guidance, but overall the description is sufficient for basic 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%, so the schema already explains all parameters including filters, date formats, pagination, and default branch. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so a baseline score 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 and resource: 'List repository commits for a GitLab project.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_project_branches_tool, list_repository_tree_tool, and list_merge_requests_tool.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_repository_tree_tool or compare_branches_tool. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the basic statement of function.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does indicate this is a read-only listing operation scoped by API token access, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default filters, or output shape. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.
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 states the core action and scope immediately and does not repeat schema information.
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, the description combined with a fully documented 8-parameter schema and an output schema is largely sufficient. It lacks usage differentiation from list_group_projects, but the core purpose and parameter surface are well covered.
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 and defaults for all 8 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, which matches 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GitLab projects'), and scopes it to 'accessible by the API token,' which clearly distinguishes it from more specific siblings like list_group_projects or get_project_tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives. It does not mention that list_group_projects exists for group-scoped listing or when search/membership filters should be used.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait—permanence/irreversibility—but it omits auth requirements, side effects on associated resources, and any confirmation steps. This is more than a tautology but still a partial disclosure.
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 front-loads the action and the resource. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema/annotation information.
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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and the description conveys the essential destructive and permanent nature. Yet, for a permanent deletion action with no annotations, a note about required permissions or reversibility beyond the single word 'permanently' would make it 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully described in the schema ('Project ID (numeric) or path...'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a GitLab project permanently.' The word 'permanently' adds important scope and distinguishes this from non-destructive project tools and other delete tools in the sibling list such as delete_branch_tool and delete_label_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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer to use this when a GitLab project needs permanent deletion. However, there is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, when not to use it, or alternative 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without explicitly stating it is a read-only operation, or mentioning potential failure modes, permissions, or side effects. The verb implies retrieval, but the description adds no enriching context beyond that, failing to fully carry the transparency burden.
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 unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and clearly conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
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 read-only retrieval tool with two fully described parameters and an output schema (handling return value explanation), the description is complete. It does not need to elaborate further; the schema and presence of output schema cover the necessary technical details, and the description concisely defines the 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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (project_id as 'Project ID or path' and pipeline_id as 'Pipeline ID'). The description adds no additional meaning or nuance about parameter usage, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 specifies the action (Get), the resource (single CI/CD pipeline), and the key differentiator (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipelines_tool (bulk listing) and create/retry/cancel/delete pipeline tools. It uses a specific verb and resource, 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific pipeline ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_pipelines_tool to find IDs, or create/retry/cancel tools). It lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on alternative selection, though the phrasing 'by ID' provides implied 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is reasonably clear, but the description does not disclose any limitations, auth requirements, or behavior beyond the basic listing semantics.
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 says exactly what the tool does without wasted words. Every word earns its place.
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 listing tool, the description is complete enough when combined with the rich parameter schema and output schema. The schema already covers filtering, pagination, sorting, and return details, so the one-line description is 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 the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the project context, so 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CI/CD pipelines') and scopes the action to 'a GitLab project'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_tool and list_pipeline_jobs_tool.
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 get_pipeline_tool, list_pipeline_jobs_tool, or create_pipeline_tool. The intended use case is implied by the name but not explicitly contrasted with 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content is base64 encoded, which is useful, but does not explicitly note that the operation is read-only (though obvious from 'get') or detail any potential error conditions. The description provides minimal but sufficient behavioral context for a simple 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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately state the purpose and a key output detail. There is no filler or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.
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, the description adequately covers its role and output format. The presence of a complete output schema and well-documented parameters means the agent has enough information to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps like specifying that ref defaults to HEAD are already in the schema, so the description need not repeat them.
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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific nuances beyond what the schema states; it only mentions output encoding, not parameter behavior. Thus, it adds no extra meaning to 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 tool fetches a file from a GitLab repository, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource (file). It also distinguishes from siblings like list_repository_tree (which lists contents) and create/update_file (which write). The return content being base64 is an additional clarifying detail.
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 reading file contents, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives like list_repository_tree or search tools. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, so guidance is limited to what can be inferred from the name and purpose.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read operation, but the description does not disclose return structure or any edge cases. The existence of an output schema mitigates some uncertainty, making it minimally adequate.
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 filler or repetition. Every word adds clarity, making it an model of concise writing.
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 low complexity (2 parameters, simple getter) and the presence of an output schema, the one-sentence description is sufficient for correct invocation. It could mention when to favor this over get_mr_changes_tool, but that is not essential.
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 both parameters clearly documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond reinforcing that 'merge_request_iid' is the lookup key, so 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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('a single merge request'), and the distinguishing key ('by its IID'). This differentiates it from list_merge_requests_tool and other 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'single' and 'by its IID' implies this is for retrieving a specific MR when you know its internal ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys a read operation and the identifier format, but it does not discuss behavior such as error handling for non-existent projects, permission requirements, or response details beyond what the output schema already provides.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and is appropriately sized for a tool with only one parameter.
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 one-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource and how to specify it. It lacks notes on error cases or permissions, but the low complexity makes this a minor 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%, and the parameter's own description already documents that project_id can be a numeric ID or a path like 'group/project'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'GitLab project details' and explicitly identifies the lookup method by 'ID or path'. This clearly distinguishes it from list_projects_tool and other 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when a specific project's details are needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tool to choose. It does not mention list_projects_tool for listing or compare with other project-related 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the qualifier 'accessible by the token' which clarifies access scope, a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose pagination, result limits, or any potential side effects, though these are partially covered by the schema and output 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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core functionality.
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 high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the high-level purpose. It might be slightly sparse but adequately contextualizes the tool for an agent given the structured information elsewhere.
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?
All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (schema_description_coverage=100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already covers search, scope, page, and per_page adequately.
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 'Search across all GitLab resources accessible by the token' clearly states the tool performs a global search using a search verb with a specific resource scope ('all GitLab resources'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_project_tool by explicitly targeting across all resources, implying a global vs project-scoped distinction.
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 global usage but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks directives like 'use this when you need to search across multiple projects' or contrast with search_project_tool, so usage guidance is only inferred from the word 'all'.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not mention not-found behavior, permission requirements, or any other edge-case behavior. For a simple retrieval this is adequate but minimal.
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 the tool's action and target in a compact, waste-free way. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding.
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 one required parameter, a full output schema, and a low-complexity read operation, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional return value documentation is necessary because the output schema exists.
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% for the single user_id parameter, which is already described as an integer 'User ID'. The description adds only the redundant 'by ID' phrase and no additional semantic 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific GitLab user by ID'), making the purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_users and get_current_user by explicitly scoping to a single user by ID.
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 'by ID' implies the tool is appropriate when a user_id is known and a single user record is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_users for searching/browsing. Usage context is only implied, not clearly stated.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for this simple retrieval. It does not add extra details like error handling, but that is acceptable for a basic get tool.
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 wasted words. It is concise and directly communicates 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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. The output schema exists, so return details are not required. It could improve by mentioning that it requires both project_id and tag_name, but the schema already captures that.
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%, and each parameter is already documented ('Tag associated with the release' and 'Project ID or path'). The description adds no new meaning beyond confirming tag_name is the lookup key, so it meets the baseline.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a single release') with a specific scope ('by tag name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_releases_tool (which lists all releases) and create_release_tool (which creates a release).
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 retrieving a specific release by tag, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus listing releases or other alternatives. No mention of when not to use or 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the permanent, destructive nature and the cascade to all jobs, which are critical traits for a deletion operation. It does not mention permissions or edge cases, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 two-parameter delete operation with an output schema, this description provides sufficient context: the action, the target resource, the scope, and permanence. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to 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?
The schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, and the tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what's already in the schema. 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 the action ('Delete'), the resource ('CI/CD pipeline'), and the scope ('all its jobs permanently'). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_pipeline_tool and delete_job_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 its use case (permanent deletion of a pipeline), but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives like canceling a pipeline or deleting individual jobs. There is no exclusion guidance or naming of 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and discloses the return content ('ID, username, email, and permissions'). It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention error/rate-limit behavior, but for a zero-parameter getter this is reasonably transparent.
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 core purpose, and contains no redundant or filler 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?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly contrasting with get_user_tool, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.
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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. 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 and resource: 'Get the currently authenticated GitLab user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_tool (specific user by ID) and list_users_tool (list 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 phrase 'currently authenticated' implies this is for retrieving the active user's context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_tool or list_users_tool. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are 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?
The description discloses that discussions include inline code comments with file position data, providing insight into the returned content. As a read-only list operation, no side effects are expected, and the description sufficiently conveys the behavior without needing to mention permissions or limitations.
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 concise and well-structured: one sentence stating the primary function, followed by a clarifying clause about the content. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
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 description is complete for a simple list operation. It identifies the resource and the included content (inline comments with file position data). Since an output schema exists, the lack of explicit return-value explanation is acceptable. The description is sufficient to understand the tool's scope.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds context about the nature of discussions (including inline comments), which indirectly relates to the parameters, though it does not directly elaborate on them. This is adequate given the schema completeness.
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 (list) and the resource (discussions on a merge request), and clarifies that discussions include inline code comments with file position data. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly contrast it with similar tools like list_mr_notes or create_mr_discussion. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, though the distinction is implicit in the resource type.
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/crunchtools/mcp-gitlab'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server