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 implies a read operation but doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of listing merge requests (which may involve pagination, filtering, and authentication), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address how results are returned, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable 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 'status'). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or context for 'repoId' formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('merge requests for a given GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_get_mr_details' or 'github_list_prs', which would require mentioning it returns a list rather than details or that it's GitLab-specific vs GitHub.

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 when to choose it over 'gitlab_get_mr_details' for detailed info or 'github_list_prs' for GitHub projects, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or project access.

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