gitlab-ci-mcp

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description adds value by detailing what information is included (state, branches, author, etc.) and clarifying the parameter behavior (project_path defaults from env var). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists included information, and the examples provide practical guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, and key usage guidelines are front-loaded.

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 rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adds necessary context about what data is returned and when to use alternatives, making it fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents both parameters (mr_iid and project_path). The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'project-local number shown as !42' is already in schema), so it meets the baseline of 3 without significantly enhancing parameter understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get full information') and resource ('about a merge request'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool gitlab_get_merge_request_changes by explicitly stating what it doesn't include (changed files). The inclusion of 'by internal ID (iid)' adds precision.

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 includes a positive example ('Show me the description and state of !42') and a negative exclusion ('Don't use to see changed files — use gitlab_get_merge_request_changes'). This clearly defines the tool's scope relative to its sibling.

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