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 value by specifying what metadata is returned (ID, default branch, visibility, counts) and providing usage examples, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior beyond the annotations. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise, relevant examples that illustrate usage without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying tool application, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only, idempotent), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It provides purpose, usage examples, and metadata details, adequately supplementing the structured data without redundancy.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'project_path' well-documented in the schema (including default behavior from env var). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Return') and resource ('basic metadata about a project'), listing concrete examples of what it returns (ID, default branch, visibility, counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gitlab_get_file or gitlab_list_branches by focusing on project-level metadata rather than file content, branch lists, or pipeline operations.

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 clear context through examples of when to use this tool ('What's the project ID and default branch' and 'Is this repo public or private'), which implicitly guides usage for metadata queries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using gitlab_list_branches for branch lists instead of just the default branch.

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