Code Review MCP Server

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 but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., diff output structure), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching diffs), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the diff output looks like (e.g., patch format, file listings), potential error conditions, or how it differs from related tools. This leaves the agent with inadequate context for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('repoId' and 'mrId') with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get the diff') and the target resource ('of a specific merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_mr_details' or 'github_get_pr_diff', which would require mentioning it retrieves the code changes/differences specifically rather than general MR information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_mr_details' (for general MR info) or 'github_get_pr_diff' (for GitHub equivalents), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing MR ID or appropriate permissions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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