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 the safety profile. The description adds useful context about default filtering behavior (state='opened') and client-side filtering suggestions, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or rate limits beyond what's in the schema. With annotations covering core behavioral traits, this earns a baseline 3.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by practical examples and an explicit usage boundary. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the examples show when to use it, and the final sentence tells when not to use it. 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 the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), rich annotations covering safety and behavior, 100% schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It provides the essential context needed to select and use the tool correctly, including sibling differentiation and practical examples.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description provides example usage patterns that illustrate how the 'state' parameter works in practice, but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 merge requests of a project, optionally filtered by state.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('merge requests'), and scope ('of a project'), and distinguishes it from sibling gitlab_get_merge_request by noting that tool is for detailed views when an MR IID is known.

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 gives three concrete examples of when to use it (open MRs, merged last week, everything regardless of state) and explicitly states 'Don't use when you have an MR IID — use gitlab_get_merge_request for detail,' naming the specific alternative tool.

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