gitlab-ci-mcp

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Not idempotent' (though idempotentHint=false already indicates this), warns about consuming runner minutes, and provides guidance on avoiding loops. It also clarifies that each call creates a new pipeline, which adds operational understanding not captured in annotations.

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: it starts with the core purpose, adds critical behavioral warnings, then provides concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting with bold text and clear examples enhances readability.

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 complexity (non-idempotent pipeline creation with resource implications), the description provides complete context: purpose, behavioral warnings, usage guidance with alternatives, and practical examples. With annotations covering safety aspects and an output schema presumably handling return values, the description focuses appropriately on operational guidance.

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 already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description provides helpful examples showing how ref and variables parameters work together in practice, but doesn't add substantial semantic information beyond what's in the schema. 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 ('Create a new pipeline') and resource ('on the given ref'), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_retry_pipeline. It explicitly mentions optional CI variables, providing a complete picture of the tool's function.

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 vs alternatives: it states 'Don't call to retry — use gitlab_retry_pipeline which keeps the same pipeline ID.' It also warns against calling in loops due to resource consumption, offering clear usage boundaries.

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