gitlab-ci-mcp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that retrying creates new job runs (new history entries), specifies when it's safe to call (pipeline has failed/canceled jobs), and notes it has no effect if everything passed. Annotations cover basic safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description provides operational specifics that help the agent understand consequences.

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: purpose statement first, key behavioral details second, then concrete examples with do/don't guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The two-sentence examples section is tightly focused on practical application.

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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral effects, and examples without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema).

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it provides a clear usage example linking 'pipeline 123' to pipeline_id=123, which reinforces understanding. This meets the baseline 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 specific action ('Retry all failed jobs') on a specific resource ('existing pipeline'), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_trigger_pipeline. It provides precise scope ('failed/canceled jobs') and outcome ('creates new job runs').

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when pipeline has at least one failed/canceled job, avoid when everything passed, and don't use for successful pipelines (use gitlab_trigger_pipeline instead). This clearly defines when to use and when not to use with named alternatives.

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