GitLab MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'List projects', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('List projects accessible by the current user') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination defaults, or how parameters interact (e.g., combining 'owned' and 'membership'). For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context on behavior and output is needed to guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying user accessibility, which aligns with parameters like 'owned' and 'membership'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 ('List') and resource ('projects'), specifying they are 'accessible by the current user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_group_projects' or 'get_project' by indicating user-specific access, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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_group_projects' or 'get_project'. It mentions 'accessible by the current user', which implies a user-centric view, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, usage context is minimal.

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