gitlab-ci-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Cannot be undone' clarifies the irreversible nature of the operation, which is crucial for a destructive action. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description reinforces the permanence and provides practical guidance about alternatives. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement followed by practical examples and alternative guidance. Every sentence earns its place—the first states the action, the second warns about irreversibility, and the third provides comparative usage advice. No wasted words.

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 that this is a destructive operation with clear annotations (destructiveHint=true) and an output schema exists, the description provides exactly what's needed: it clarifies the irreversible nature, distinguishes from alternatives, and includes practical examples. The combination of description, annotations, and schema coverage creates a complete picture for the agent.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description provides an example showing how 'schedule_id=42' maps to natural language, which adds minor practical value. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.

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 explicitly states the specific action ('Delete a schedule by ID') and resource ('schedule'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_update_schedule' or 'gitlab_list_schedules'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 versus alternatives: it states 'If you only want to pause it temporarily, call `gitlab_update_schedule` with `active=False` instead.' This clearly defines the boundary between deletion and temporary deactivation, helping the agent choose correctly.

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