gitlab-ci-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that 'in-flight jobs will be interrupted' and clarifies that cancelling a finished pipeline is a 'no-op'. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description provides concrete operational details that enhance understanding without contradicting annotations.

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

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

The description is efficiently structured with clear sections: a purpose statement, behavioral details, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and information is front-loaded with the core action first, followed by important qualifications.

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

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

Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of annotations and output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It covers purpose, behavioral consequences, usage guidelines, and examples, making it fully sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool appropriately.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain pipeline_id format or project_path resolution details). However, the examples provide context for how pipeline_id is used in practice.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Cancel a running pipeline') and resource ('pipeline'), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_retry_pipeline. It explicitly mentions the effect on 'in-flight jobs' and provides concrete examples of when to use it, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Pipeline 123 is stuck, cancel it') and when not to ('Don't use on finished pipelines'), including a clear alternative ('use gitlab_retry_pipeline if you want to rerun it'). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation and usage context.

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