gitlab-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The runner-related tools are clearly differentiated by scope (user, all, project, group) and operation (list, get, update, delete, assign, unassign, reset, verify). Even similar reset token tools specify their method (by runner ID vs. current token) in the name.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as get_project, list_merge_requests, update_runner, and reset_runner_authentication_token_by_current_token. The naming is predictable and easy to navigate, despite some longer composite names.
Tool Count2/5
With 33 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While GitLab has a broad API, the set includes a very large number of runner-specific endpoints (about 20 runner-related tools) plus two unusual analytics tools, making the overall surface feel overloaded and less focused.
Completeness2/5
The server is heavily read-oriented for core resources (projects, merge requests, pipelines, commits) and lacks create/update/delete operations for these. Runner management is comprehensive, but the overall GitLab domain is incomplete—agents cannot create a project, update or merge a merge request, or cancel a pipeline, leaving significant gaps.
Average 3.2/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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.json to 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

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 behavioral traits. It only states that it lists commits, with no mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, or that it returns a potentially paginated list. No significant behavioral context is added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is good for front-loading, but it is under-specifying. It is concise but not informative enough to earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the eight-parameter schema and the presence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention filtering options (since, until, path), pagination (page, per_page), or the ref_name and with_stats parameters. The output schema covers return values, but usage context is still lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter roles, but it does not. The description adds no meaning to the eight parameters, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commits') with a scoping phrase ('for a project'). It clearly states the tool's basic function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like get_commit or compare_commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit or compare_commits. There are no use-case scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'visible to the token,' which hints at auth scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default page/per_page, or the meaning of filters like owned/membership. The agent has no sense of what side effects or limits exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is structurally clean. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse, lacking any information about parameters or behavior, so it is not appropriately informative for the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with zero documentation, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, pagination, or filtering, leaving the agent without enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter definitions (page, owned, search, per_page, membership) are completely undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any of these parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 ('projects'), and adds a scoping detail ('visible to the token'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that involve other resources (e.g., list_merge_requests) or single-item retrieval (get_project), though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 like get_project or other list tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or filtering use cases. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and minimal description.
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 behavior on its own. It only states the outcome (summarizing contributors and components) but does not explain how bugfixes are identified (e.g., via keywords), what 'most changed' means, or any side effects 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and does not follow any structure that separates purpose from usage or parameter notes, making it less effective than a well-organized multi-sentence description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema, many sibling tools), the description is far too thin. It does not explain required inputs, how to configure the summary, or how it integrates with GitLab data, leaving a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 7 parameters with zero descriptions, and the tool description does not mention any of them (project, since, until, top_n, branch, bug_keywords, component_path_rules). This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of what each parameter does, making correct invocation impossible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool summarizes 'bugfix contributors and most changed components,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or retrieve GitLab entities. However, the verb 'summarize' is somewhat vague and does not explain how the summary is produced.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 the many sibling tools like list_commits or get_merge_request. The description provides no context on when a summary is needed or what alternatives exist.
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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get details.' It does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, authentication, or response format, leaving the agent to infer these from the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but conciseness without information is under-specification. It is not bloated, but it lacks essential details, so it is only average.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the semantics of mr_iid, when to use the tool, or any behavioral context. The agent would need to guess or rely on other documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description only clarifies that 'project' is the container. It fails to explain 'mr_iid' (which is an integer but its meaning as a merge request IID is not stated), leaving a critical parameter ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('merge request details from a project'). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish from list_merge_requests, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_merge_requests, nor does it mention any prerequisites or 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?
The description notes the HTTP method and the Runner-Token header, which are useful behavioral details. However, with no annotations, the description must disclose safety, side effects, or constraints; it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe response behavior or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and structured well, though the brevity sacrifices substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits usage context, when to invoke it, and any behavioral details beyond the endpoint and header. The existing output schema may cover return values, but the description provides insufficient context to fully understand the tool's place in the API.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description hints that authentication_token is used as the Runner-Token header, giving context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the 'authentication_token' parameter maps to the header, and with 0% schema coverage, this indirect reference only partially clarifies the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the endpoint (GET /runners/router/discovery) and mentions 'Job Router discovery', but it doesn't explicitly state what the tool accomplishes or what data it returns. The name and endpoint imply a read operation for job router configuration, which distinguishes it from sibling tools, but the purpose remains vague without a concrete verb or outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool, under what circumstances, or how it compares to alternatives like get_runner or list_runners. The phrase 'Job Router discovery' is a label rather than a usage instruction.
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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and endpoint. It does not mention that jobs are paginated, supports sorting/filtering, requires specific permissions, or what the response contains. This is a minimal disclosure with significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, and the parenthetical API endpoint is a useful reference. However, it is under-specified to the point of being terse; adding a short clause about parameters or filters would improve value without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far from complete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't even hint at pagination, filtering, or the nature of the returned jobs, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 7 parameters and zero schema description coverage, but the description provides no information about any parameter beyond the implicit runner_id in the endpoint. It gives no meaning to page, sort, status, order_by, per_page, or system_id, leaving users completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List'), resource ('jobs'), and scope ('by a runner'), and includes the REST endpoint for clarification. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runners or get_job_trace, though it could be more explicit about the full scope (e.g., all jobs, filtered by status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as when to prefer list_pipelines for pipeline jobs or get_job_trace for a specific job's log. It fails to mention any exclusions or context for expected 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the HTTP method and a preference for paused over active, but fails to explain side effects, permissions, or how unspecified parameters are handled (e.g., whether they remain unchanged or are reset to defaults).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded with the core action, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of missing critical information, making the brevity more of a deficiency than a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations) and minimal description, the description is far from complete. While an output schema exists, the description fails to clarify the parameters or usage context, leaving the agent with little more than the tool's name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the 10 parameters. It only says 'runner settings' generically, offering no insight into what each field controls or how they relate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Update runner settings' with the HTTP method PUT and endpoint '/runners/:id'. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_runner, delete_runner, and token reset operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The only behavioral hint, 'Prefer paused over active,' is about parameter values, not tool selection or contextual use cases.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states a generic read operation without mentioning required project specification, error behavior, or the effect of the 'stats' parameter. The output schema exists but does not cover side effects or usage nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to parse. While it is concise, it is not overly verbose; however, its brevity leaves out needed detail, so it is not a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks contextual completeness. It does not provide usage context or distinguish from sibling tools, and for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, more guidance is needed. The description is minimal and leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter clarity. It does not explain what 'stats' does or how the required 'project' and 'sha' parameters should be formatted. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (commit details), and the scope (from a project). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_commits and compare_commits, which handle multiple commits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 list_commits or compare_commits. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
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. It implies a read operation but gives no details on pagination, filtering, response behavior, or required permissions. The schema lists many parameters, but the description does not explain their runtime effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler words, making it very concise and front-loaded. It could be more informative, but brevity is excellent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other contextual information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 8 parameters. The parameter names and types in the schema are the only source of semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the missing descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('runners for a group'), and includes the exact REST endpoint for disambiguation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_runners and list_all_runners.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or related 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action and does not mention pagination, filtering capabilities, or the meaning of 'available', leaving the user without insight into the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the API endpoint. There is zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 8 parameters and a sibling tool list, the description offers no usage context, no filtering implications, and no guidance on selection among the many runner-related tools. It is minimally sufficient only for the simplest interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 8 parameters are entirely undocumented in the description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists runners for the current user, with the verb 'List' and resource 'runners'. The scope 'available to the current user' differentiates from list_all_runners, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The scope 'available to the current user' implies this tool is for user-scoped runner listing, but there is no explicit statement about when to use it versus list_all_runners or list_project_runners.
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?
There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or whether the output is a summary or full details. It adds minimal context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is good, but it's also under-specified, so it's not as effective as it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, an output schema, and two simple parameters, the description is minimal and doesn't explain invocation context, possible edge cases, or how to identify a pipeline. It's adequate for basic selection but lacks depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two required parameters. The description only mentions 'from a project' which gives weak context for the 'project' parameter, but says nothing about the format or meaning of 'pipeline_id' or how they relate to the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'pipeline details from a project', clearly indicating it retrieves details for a specific pipeline. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling list_pipelines or get_merge_request, relying on the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pipelines or get_project, and no prerequisites or contextual conditions 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 the full burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default states, or that filtering parameters exist. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no explicit behavior is described beyond the core action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action. It is efficient but somewhat under-specified, though this dimension rewards brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not cover filtering, pagination, or other context needed for non-trivial use cases. It is minimally viable only for the simplest listing scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description only implies the 'project' parameter, leaving the other 8 parameters (page, per_page, state, labels, merged_after/before, source/target_branch) unexplained. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List merge requests for a project' with a specific verb (List), resource (merge requests), and scope (project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_merge_request (singular) and other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 vs alternatives such as get_merge_request or list_projects. No filtering context, exclusions, or use-case scenarios 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP GET method, implying read-only, but does not elaborate on pagination, filtering behavior, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The minimal detail goes little beyond the basic list action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and scope and efficiently includes the API endpoint. Every word serves a purpose, exemplifying good conciseness even if more detail is needed elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (9 parameters) and has no annotations or schema descriptions. The description provides almost no context beyond the basic purpose, omitting mention of the many filter and pagination parameters. The endpoint informaion is helpful but insufficient for an agent to understand how to effectively use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanations for any of them. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the meanings of parameters like 'tag_list', 'runner_type', and 'version_prefix' entirely to inference from names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List runners') and resource scope ('available to a project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_all_runners or list_group_runners. Including the API endpoint (GET /projects/:id/runners) adds precision and confirms the project-scoped nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 list_runners, list_all_runners, or list_group_runners. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage solely from the tool name and description.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions POST, indicating a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens if the runner is already assigned. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the endpoint. There is no unnecessary content, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal but lacks essential context. For a mutation operation, it would benefit from notes on idempotency, required permissions, and any side effects. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly define the parameters 'project' and 'runner_id'. The endpoint shows ':id' suggesting project ID, but there is no elaboration on the format (e.g., 'project' could be ID or path). Parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Assign a project runner to a project') and includes the specific HTTP endpoint (POST /projects/:id/runners). This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like unassign_runner_from_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or point to related tools such as list_project_runners or unassign_runner_from_project. Usage is only implied by the action 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Compare two refs' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, what kind of output to expect, or how the 'straight' parameter affects behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It quickly conveys the core purpose and parameters, and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, alternative guidance, and explanation of the 'straight' parameter. The existence of an output schema mitigates some need for return-value details, but the description still fails to provide a full picture for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description partially explains that from_ref and to_ref are refs (branch/tag/sha) and implies project context, but it completely omits any explanation of the 'straight' parameter. With zero schema description coverage, this leaves one of four parameters undocumented, providing insufficient semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (compare) and resource (two refs in a project), and specifies the ref types (branch/tag/sha). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits and get_commit, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 list_commits or get_commit. The description does not mention specific use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with other commit-related 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether this is a read-only operation, how it processes commits, whether it produces a file or text, or if it has side effects. The word 'Generate' implies a result, but safety, permissions, and mechanics are unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), one sentence is insufficient. The agent lacks critical information about parameter configuration, behavioral constraints, and how this generation tool relates to sibling tools. While an output schema may exist, it does not compensate for missing usage and semantic context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description hints at 'commits in a time range' (mapping to since/until) and 'customer-facing' (mapping to audience default), but schema description coverage is 0%. Nine parameters exist, and key ones like categories, ref_name, max_commits_to_scan, include_merge_commits, and max_items_per_category are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their roles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Generate customer-facing release notes from commits in a time range' with a specific verb, resource, and source. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_commits, compare_commits, and summarize_bugfix_contribution, which focus on listing or summarizing individual items rather than producing full release notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 other generation or analysis tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred context, so the agent receives no help in choosing this over 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, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'reset', which implies token invalidation and regeneration, but does not state side effects (e.g., existing runners invalidated), permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is still under-specified for a destructive mutation. It does not mention authentication requirements, the impact on existing runners, or any exceptional conditions. Given the lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool is only partially contextualized.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only reinforces that the 'project' parameter identifies the project whose token is reset, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., project ID or URL-encoded path). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (reset) and the specific resource (a project's runner registration token). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like reset_instance_runner_registration_token and reset_group_runner_registration_token by explicitly indicating project scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives. It does not mention project-level vs group/instance scope, prerequisites, or situations where another reset tool would be preferred. The agent is left 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.
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 does not disclose pagination behavior (page/per_page defaults), the fact that results can be filtered by status or ref, or any other non-obvious behavior. 'List' implies read-only, but the description is too sparse to be fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easily scannable, making it effective for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose but omits key contextual details like filtering options and pagination defaults. The output schema and parameter defaults partially compensate, but the lack of any parameter descriptions and usage alternatives leaves gaps for an agent determining correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies that the tool is scoped to a project. It does not explain the meaning of 'ref', 'status', 'page', or 'per_page' beyond what their names imply. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List pipelines for a project' uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource (pipelines) and scope (project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline' by indicating a list operation rather than a single-item fetch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 that 'get_pipeline' should be used for a single pipeline, nor does it explain the role of filters like status or ref. The agent is left without comparative 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, leaving the description to fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Reset', which implies a mutation but fails to mention whether the old token is invalidated, what permissions are required, or any side effects. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, though it could include more behavioral details without becoming cumbersome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it requires more context about the effect of resetting the token. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks information about invalidation of the old token or permissions, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on group_id beyond the noun 'group'. It does not explain how to obtain the group_id or any constraints, leaving the parameter semantics under-specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'reset' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a group's runner registration token'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reset_project_runner_registration_token and reset_instance_runner_registration_token by explicitly scoping to groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reset_project_runner_registration_token. However, the tool name and context imply usage for group-scoped tokens, providing a clear but unstated differentiation.
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 explaining side effects and error conditions. It only discloses the 410 legacy registration edge case, but does not mention whether this creates a persistent runner resource, whether admin permissions are required, whether the token is consumed, or any 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word adds value: the endpoint is specified, and the 410 error is a useful warning. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 11 parameters and no annotations, the description provides minimal surrounding context. It does not explain the intended operational flow, prerequisites (like obtaining a registration token), or the meaning of the many optional fields. Even though an output schema exists, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 11 parameters. While some parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., 'registration_token'), others like 'maintainer_note' vs 'maintenance_note' are ambiguous and not clarified. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Register a runner') and the mechanism ('with a registration token, POST /runners'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, update, or delete runners, and from tools that reset tokens. The verb+resource combination 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it registers a runner using the legacy registration token endpoint. It also warns about a potential 410 error, which helps the agent anticipate when the tool might fail. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool authenticates with the runner token only, not PRIVATE-TOKEN. However, it does not mention any side effects, safety profile, or response behavior, especially since this is a POST operation, leaving some uncertainty about whether it is a safe, read-only check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and the key authentication detail. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic action, but it lacks usage guidance and parameter context, and there is no additional context signal from annotations or output schema to supplement it. It does not explain what the result of verification indicates or how to interpret the response, leaving gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. It only refers to 'runner token' which maps to authentication_token implicitly, but system_id is completely unexplained. This does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Verify runner credentials') and identifies the specific resource ('runners') and endpoint ('POST /runners/verify'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting it verifies credentials rather than deleting, resetting, or listing them, and specifies the auth token type, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_runners or delete_runner_by_authentication_token. The only contextual hint is that it uses the runner token instead of PRIVATE-TOKEN, which hints at a specific auth scenario but does not clarify the intended use case 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 disclose behavioral consequences, but it only states the action and admin scope. It does not mention that resetting invalidates the existing token, affects runners already registered, or is irreversible, which is critical for a security-sensitive admin operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and admin requirement in just seven words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there are no parameters and an output schema exists to handle return values, the description is incomplete for a destructive admin action. It lacks information about side effects, invalidation of existing tokens, and when to prefer related reset tools, leaving the agent without enough context to act safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 applies because the description has nothing to add beyond the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset'), the resource ('instance runner registration token'), and the required role ('admin'). The word 'instance' distinguishes it from project/group-level reset tools and auth token reset tools among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage hint is the parenthetical '(admin)', indicating a privilege requirement. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like reset_project_runner_registration_token or reset_runner_authentication_token_by_runner_id, so an agent gets little help choosing among related 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 carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only mentions the reset action and endpoint, but does not state that the old token will be invalidated, whether special permissions are required, or what happens to the runner. This is a significant transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that concisely states the action and includes the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is still incomplete because it lacks side-effect disclosure and usage guidance. The destructive nature of resetting a token is not mentioned, and no alternative tools are referenced. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (authentication_token) with no description, and the description's phrase 'using the current token' helps clarify its meaning. However, it does not explicitly link the parameter to that concept or provide any additional format/validation details. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but coverage from schema is 0%, so some compensation exists but remains partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Reset a runner authentication token using the current token', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool reset_runner_authentication_token_by_runner_id by specifying the token-based method, and also provides the endpoint for clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'using the current token' implies the scenario where the current token is available, contrasting with the runner-id approach. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reset_runner_authentication_token_by_runner_id, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 behavior on its own. It only states the action and the HTTP verb, but does not mention that deletion is permanent, whether it removes the runner from associated projects, or any authentication requirements. This is a destructive operation, and the description lacks crucial 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: a single sentence that includes the action, resource, and endpoint. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given 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, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it is a destructive delete operation, and the description omits important context like irreversibility and potential side effects. It is adequate for a minimal tool but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by saying 'by ID' and referencing the path parameter :id, clarifying that runner_id is the identifier. However, it doesn't explain the source or format of the ID beyond the schema's integer type, offering only minimal compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Delete a runner by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint for precision. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_runner and get_runner by specifying the delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage—use this tool when you want to delete a runner—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For a straightforward delete operation, the intended use is fairly clear, but there is no discussion of prerequisites or edge cases.
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 carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the HTTP method and that it does not use PRIVATE-TOKEN. It does not explain whether the deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds an important caveat about PRIVATE-TOKEN. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks crucial context for a destructive operation, such as permanence, permission requirements, and how it differs from other runner deletion/reset tools. There are clear gaps that could lead an agent to misuse the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter (authentication_token) with 0% description coverage. The description merely restates the parameter name ('using its authentication token') without adding meaning such as how to obtain the token, its format, or what it represents. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (a runner), and the specific mechanism (using its authentication token). It also provides the exact API endpoint (DELETE /runners with token), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_runner (likely by ID) and reset_runner_authentication_token_by_current_token.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool should be used when you have a runner's authentication token and need to delete the runner. It explicitly notes that it does not use PRIVATE-TOKEN, which differentiates it from other GitLab API tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' tier.
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?
The description notes the output is plain-text, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose other behaviors such as auth requirements, error cases, or large-file handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clean sentence front-loading the action and resource, with the API endpoint as a compact reference. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple GET tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and format, but lacks guidance on when traces are available and parameter usage. Given the missing annotations and 0% schema coverage, a bit more detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions for project or job_id, and the description only refers to 'a project job' without explaining how to format `project` (e.g., numeric ID vs URL-encoded path) or where `job_id` originates. This leaves a significant semantic gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a CI job log (trace) for a project job, using a specific verb and resource. The API endpoint further disambiguates it from sibling tools like get_pipeline or get_runner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need a job's log, but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or prerequisites. There are no sibling tools for trace retrieval, so the correct context is clear but not explicitly 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the DELETE HTTP method, indicating a destructive/unassign operation, which is useful context. However, it does not mention side effects on the runner, idempotency, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action and the REST endpoint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the operation, a clear output schema, and a self-explanatory endpoint, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit usage context but is otherwise sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the URL template '/projects/:id/runners/:runner_id' clarifies that both parameters are path parameters and their roles. It does not specify the format of 'project' (ID or URL-encoded path) or the source of runner_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (unassign a runner) and the specific resource (project), distinguishing it from assignment and listing tools via the explicit DELETE REST endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., runner must currently be assigned) or contrast with assign_runner_to_project or list_project_runners.
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 mentions the auth mechanism (PRIVATE-TOKEN) and HTTP method, but it does not disclose that resetting invalidates the existing token – a critical destructive consequence. It also does not mention required permissions or side effects beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes the endpoint for reference. No wasted words, all information earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so explaining return values is not needed. However, for a destructive operation like reset, the description should disclose that the existing token becomes invalid. It provides auth context but omits the key consequence, making it only partially complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (runner_id) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'using the runner ID', which maps to the parameter name but adds no extra detail such as how to find it or format constraints. It partially compensates by tying the parameter to the endpoint, but is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Reset') on a specific resource ('runner authentication token') using the runner ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reset_runner_authentication_token_by_current_token and reset_instance_runner_registration_token by specifying the identifier mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a runner ID and need to reset its authentication token, and it names the required auth method (PRIVATE-TOKEN). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the 'by_runner_id' in the name and description provides clear 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 carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses the admin/auditor permission requirement and the GET endpoint, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or other effects, leaving important behavioral aspects unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and free of any filler. It efficiently conveys the core action, scope, endpoint, and permission requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description provides only basic functional context. It covers purpose and permission but fails to explain any of the filtering parameters or provide guidance on how to use them effectively. The output schema covers return values, but parameter semantics are a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter explanations. While parameter names like 'page', 'status', and 'tag_list' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and allowed values of filters like 'scope', 'runner_type', and 'version_prefix'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'List', a specific resource 'runners', and a scope 'all runners on the instance'. It also references the exact API endpoint (GET /runners/all) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_runners by emphasizing 'all' and 'instance-wide'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for instance-wide listing and requires admin or auditor permissions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the scope and permission requirements implicitly differentiate it from more scoped runner listing 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, and the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the GET method in the endpoint. It does not disclose read-only safety, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects, leaving the agent to infer these from the HTTP verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter list operation, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter mapping. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. It could have added a note about absence of pagination or filters, but these are not essential for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no property descriptions and schema coverage is 0%. However, the description includes the URL template GET /runners/:id/managers, which clarifies that runner_id is the runner's identifier used in the path, adding meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists runner managers, including the specific fields (version, platform, system_id) and the resource scope (for a runner). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_runners or get_runner.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The description implies usage when you need manager details for a specific runner, but it does not mention exclusions or compare with similar 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only GET operation via 'Get details,' but does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or any additional behavioral quirks. The output schema covers return values, but nothing else is added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, resource, and parameter in a succinct and readable manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly specifies what the tool does and how to identify the target resource. It could mention that this is for a single runner as opposed to listing, but that is already implied by 'by ID'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter (runner_id) with no description coverage. The description's 'by ID' maps to runner_id and clarifies its role, but does not elaborate on the ID's format, source, or relationship to runners. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('runner by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_runners, update_runner, and delete_runner. It also includes the HTTP endpoint, adding precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies use when you have a specific runner identifier and need its details, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_runners or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.
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 adds the useful constraint that URLs must be on the same host as GITLAB_BASE_URL, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what happens when no parameters are provided. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any redundancy or filler. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple scope of fetching a single project by identifier, the description covers the essential identification options and the host constraint. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on what happens if both parameters are null, but that is a schema validation concern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that project_id accepts an ID, project_path accepts a path_with_namespace or web URL. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not clarify precedence when both are provided or the exact URL format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves project details and specifies three identification methods (id, path_with_namespace, web URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_merge_request by focusing on a single project lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a specific project's details but does not explicitly contrast with list_projects or other alternatives. The context is clear enough, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
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 burden. It discloses that the tool reads from environment variables and explicitly guarantees 'Does not expose tokens or passwords', which is a meaningful security behavior. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', but 'Report' implies a non-mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a necessary security note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple configuration-reporting tool with zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential context: what is reported (host, API URL, auth mode, bind settings), the source (env), and the security exclusion. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the exact resource (GitLab connection configuration including host, API v4 URL, auth mode, and bind settings). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with GitLab data objects like merge requests and projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit 'when to use' or alternative tool guidance. However, the context makes it obvious this is for checking connection configuration, and no sibling tool overlaps. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.
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:

[![gitlab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jason07289/gitlab-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jason07289/gitlab-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gitlab-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jason07289/gitlab-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/jason07289/gitlab-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/jason07289/gitlab-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server