GitLab MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), what authentication/permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or what details are returned (e.g., fields, format). For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation and front-loads the essential information, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 2 fully documented parameters but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, error handling) and doesn't explain return values, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (project_id and issue_iid) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('specific issue in a GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_issues' (which retrieves multiple issues) or 'get_issue_link' (which focuses on relationships), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus alternatives.

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 like 'list_issues' for multiple issues or 'get_issue_link' for issue relationships. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project access) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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