gitlab-ci-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the tool's role in debugging failed pipelines and mentions client-side filtering for status (e.g., 'filter result by status='failed' client-side'), which helps the agent understand practical usage. 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second provides usage context, and the examples clarify application. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates key information in a compact format.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and relationship to other tools (gitlab_get_pipeline and gitlab_get_job_log), providing all necessary context for an agent to use it effectively.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (pipeline_id and project_path). The description does not add significant semantic details beyond the schema, but it provides usage examples like 'pipeline_id=123' that reinforce parameter meaning. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'List jobs of a pipeline with stage, status, duration and web URL.' It specifies the exact resource (pipeline jobs) and verb (list), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_pipeline (for overall status) and gitlab_get_job_log (for fetching logs).

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: 'Use after noticing a failed pipeline to drill down into which specific job broke and fetch its log via gitlab_get_job_log.' It also specifies when not to use it: 'Don't use for overall pipeline status — use gitlab_get_pipeline instead.' This clearly differentiates it from alternatives.

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