gitflic-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear resource-action distinctions, but there are a few potentially confusing pairs: list_user_projects/list_projects/list_shared_projects all list different project subsets, and close_merge_request vs cancel_merge_request differ only in intent. Descriptions clarify the differences, reducing the risk of misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores, using verbs like list, get, create, update, delete, merge, approve, cancel, and start. Even modifiers like recursive or user fit the pattern cleanly, making the naming fully predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 66 tools, this is far above the 25-tool threshold considered 'too many'. While the server aims to cover a broad platform (GitFlic), the sheer number of tools creates a heavy cognitive load and makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right one.
Completeness3/5
The server covers a wide range of domains: projects, issues, merge requests, branches, commits, tags, releases, discussions, webhooks, and CI/CD. However, there are notable gaps: no create_project or delete_project, no delete_issue, issue creation does not support labels/assignees, and delete_branch is broken due to the API. Core workflows are present, but some lifecycle operations are missing.
Average 4.2/5 across 66 of 66 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the secret key is for signature verification and events to subscribe to, which gives some context, but it does not disclose side effects, required authentication, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on success or duplicate creation. For a mutating create tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by required elements and examples. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward create tool with 5 fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It provides the essential purpose and key inputs, but it lacks any mention of expected response, errors, or duplicate handling. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a little extra context (e.g., 'secret key for signature verification') but largely rephrases the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Create a new webhook') and the resource ('for a GitFlic project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_webhook, delete_webhook, and list_webhooks. The verb+resource construction is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for setting up a new webhook subscription but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or provide any when-not guidance. The context is clear from the sibling list, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it repeats information already present in the schema (mr_uuid description and required fields). It does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved or overwritten, permission requirements, reversibility, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: first states the action and scope, second gives a key prerequisite with a pointer to the correct identifier, and third clarifies required fields. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose and the UUID prerequisite, but lacks important context regarding how the update behaves for omitted optional fields (e.g., does it clear description?), potential side effects, or return data. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves behavioral gaps that an agent may need to resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: every parameter is described in the input schema. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, only restating that title and targetBranch are required. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not compensate beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a merge request's title, description, target branch, and squash/remove-branch settings, distinguishing it from sibling operations like approve, merge, close, or cancel. It names the specific resource and actionable fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear context for use by stating the MR UUID requirement and directing the agent to get it from get_merge_request's 'id' field. It also mentions that title and targetBranch are always required, which helps avoid invalid calls. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like approve_merge_request, though the action is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It wisely uses 'List' to indicate a read-only operation and explicitly states what it returns (file names, UUIDs, sizes). However, it does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second lists return values, and the third defines artifacts. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with three straightforward parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what artifacts are and what the tool returns. Minor gaps like pagination or large-result behavior are not addressed, but they are not critical for this tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying aliases or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('build artifacts'), and scopes it to a CI/CD job. It also specifies the return fields (names, UUIDs, sizes), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_job or list_pipeline_jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need artifact metadata for a job) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools do not overlap in function, so ambiguity is low, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility and required MR state, but lacks details about permissions, exact side effects, and return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: purpose, requirements, and caution. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the core action, preconditions, optionality, and irreversibility. However, with no output schema or annotations, it doesn't describe what happens on success or failure, which is a notable gap for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that commit messages are optional and for merge/squash commits, but this is minimal additional value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Perform the actual merge of a merge request into its target branch.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and 'actual merge' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'approve_merge_request' and 'close_merge_request'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides preconditions ('MR must be in OPEN status and have no conflicts') and mentions optional custom commit messages, which guides usage. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes it evident this is the final merge step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default-branch fallback, tag handling, variable passing, and prerequisites, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., consumes CI/CD resources), return behavior (e.g., whether it waits or is async), or error conditions if prerequisites are unmet. This is a mutation-like tool, so more transparency would be expected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and free of redundant detail. Every sentence contributes: core action, branch/tag behavior, and requirements/custom variables. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's action, main parameter behaviors, and prerequisites. However, since there is no output schema, it should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a pipeline object or ID) and whether execution is asynchronous. It also omits error handling for missing .gitflic-ci.yaml or runner registration. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a bit of semantic nuance by explicitly explaining the refName/isTag relationship ('set isTag=true for tags') and that custom variables are accepted, but the schema already documents these aspects adequately. It does not go beyond the schema in any meaningful way.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Start a new CI/CD pipeline execution', with a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like restart_pipeline and cancel_pipeline by emphasizing 'new'. The scope is explicit: default branch, refName for branches/tags, and custom variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to launch a new pipeline execution. It also specifies key usage details (default branch, refName for branches/tags, isTag parameter, custom variables) and prerequisites (.gitflic-ci.yaml and a registered runner). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds one behavioral detail: the comment appears as posted by the authenticated user. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden, but it lacks other potentially relevant disclosures (e.g., permissions, effects on closed issues) that could aid the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two purposeful sentences. It front-loads the primary action and includes a practical usage tip without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple comment-adding tool with four well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and one behavioral aspect. It is nearly complete, though it could mention restrictions or exceptions (e.g., requiring an open issue) to be fully exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does align 'text comment' with the text parameter, providing minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: adding a text comment to an issue discussion thread. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_issue_comments (viewing) and create_issue (creating issues) by using a specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context and explicitly advises using list_issue_comments first to see existing comments. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives for editing/deleting comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key safety property: cancellation is scoped to the specified job and does not affect others. However, it does not mention whether cancellation is reversible, whether it only works on jobs in a particular state, or what happens if the job cannot be canceled. These are important gaps given no annotations are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct at two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: one states scope, the other gives a practical use case. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could benefit from specifying outcomes or failure modes (e.g., error if job already finished), but the provided context is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool in the common case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The schema descriptions for owner, project, and job_id are adequate, and the 'running job' context slightly informs the job_id parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Cancel a specific running CI/CD job without affecting other jobs in the pipeline,' specifying the verb (cancel), resource (CI/CD job), and scope (specific job). The second sentence reinforces the use case, distinguishing it from pipeline-level cancellation and restart alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context of when to use: 'Use this to stop a single job that is hanging or no longer needed.' It implies the alternative of canceling the entire pipeline by saying 'without affecting other jobs,' but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect and a precondition, but does not mention side effects like irreversibility, required permissions, or behavior when the pipeline is not running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the key action, and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple cancellation tool, the description provides adequate context: what it cancels, the required state, and a typical use case. It lacks error/response details, but the absence of an output schema and annotations is partially compensated by the clear action and precondition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Cancel a currently running CI/CD pipeline and all its active jobs.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'all its active jobs' distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly notes the pipeline must be in a running state and gives a use case ('stop a pipeline that is no longer needed'). However, it does not mention alternatives such as cancel_job for individual jobs, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that status defaults to OPEN and can be set to other values, and that labels/assignees are not supported. However, it does not mention the return value, permission requirements, or side effects. This is a standard create operation, but with no annotations, the description could add more behavior context, so a 3 is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by requirements and limitations. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes useful information. This is an ideal concise structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, 5 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, required inputs, default status, and unsupported features. It doesn't mention return values, but for a straightforward create operation this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it restates 'requires title and description' and 'status defaults to OPEN' (both in schema), but does add the insight that labels and assignees are not supported, which is not in the schema. This slight addition justifies a 3, the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new issue in a GitFlic project.' The verb 'create' is specific and the resource is defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issues or update_issue by focusing on creation, and also notes limitations (labels/assignees not supported), further differentiating it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on requirements ('Requires title and description') and exclusions ('Labels and assignees are not supported through this tool'). While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, it implies that for label/assignee support, a different tool must be used. This is clear usage guidance with an exclusion but no explicit alternative, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the response includes full details and last commit info, but does not mention permissions, error behavior, or side effects. It is not misleading, but lacks richer behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, followed by a useful usage hint. No redundant information or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the key purpose and output scope. It could mention error cases or auth requirements, but for a straightforward getter, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: owner and project are described in the schema as aliases. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the default branch of a project, and specifies it returns full details including last commit info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_branch (specific branch) and list_branches (all branches).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'when you need the base branch name for comparisons or merge requests.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, which would make it a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does mention the return contents (description, files, links), which is useful, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, potential errors (e.g., no releases), or authentication requirements. It adds some behavioral context but remains incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by a concise usage note. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two paramters, no output schema, read-only nature implied), the description adequately covers purpose, return details, and usage context. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., no releases) but is sufficient for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both owner and project, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the most recent release of a project' and specifies the details returned (description, files, download links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_release (specific release) and list_releases (all releases), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need the current version without browsing all releases.' This implies list_releases as an alternative but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios like needing a specific release, so it lacks a full when-not-to-use clause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It describes what is returned (full message, author, file/line references, replies), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error handling. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but without annotations a more explicit safety note would be stronger.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the primary purpose and return content, the second provides workflow guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and no word is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return content (message, author, file/line references, replies). It also references list_mr_discussions for finding UUIDs, closing the typical workflow. It slightly lacks detail on the response structure (e.g., nested vs. flat), but for a simple getter this is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal information beyond the schema, only mentioning 'by UUID' and referencing list_mr_discussions, which maps to the discussionUuid parameter. This does not go beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('specific discussion thread by UUID, including all replies'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mr_discussions by focusing on a single thread identified by UUID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance to use list_mr_discussions to find UUIDs, which is helpful for the common flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for listing all discussions), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns issue local ID, title, status, and creation date, and supports pagination. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is ordered. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with four short sentences each serving a clear purpose: purpose, returned fields, domain analogy, and pointer to an alternative. All content is directly useful and front-loaded with the main verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a straightforward list endpoint with a schema covering all parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it explains pagination, return fields, and how to get more details. With no output schema, it supplies a high-level return description. It could improve by mentioning ordering or response structure, but it covers the essential decision-making information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents page, size, owner, and project. The description adds only the general notion of pagination and the list of returned fields, which does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List issues (tasks) of a GitFlic project with pagination.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_issue by noting that list_issues returns summaries and pointing to get_issue for full details. The analogy to GitHub Issues adds context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus get_issue: use list_issues for summaries and pagination, use get_issue for full details including description and labels. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., 'do not use for filtering by label'), but the pointer to get_issue is a clear alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: 'Internally resolves the project UUID from owner/alias before querying members.' However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or the absence of side effects. It adds some context but not comprehensive transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides useful information: the purpose, search support, and resolution detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, search capability, and internal resolution behavior. It does not describe the return format or pagination details, but these are partially inferred from the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that owner and project are aliases and that the tool resolves them to a UUID internally. This gives the agent a better understanding of how the parameters are used, exceeding the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 members (collaborators) of a project with their roles.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_user_projects (lists projects for a user) and get_user (gets a single user's info). The mention of search by username further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving project members but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like list_shared_projects or list_projects. The context is clear but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool lists releases and returns specific fields, and implies pagination behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it mention any auth or rate-limit considerations. It is adequate but lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, each serving a purpose: the first states the action, the second enumerates the returned fields, and the third provides context and an alternative. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with comprehensive schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains what releases are, what fields are returned, and that pagination is supported. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit list of returned fields. It could arguably mention the page/size defaults, but the schema already provides those.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including defaults and ranges. The description only adds the generic concept of pagination, which matches the page and size parameters but doesn't contribute additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List releases of a GitFlic project') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that get_release and get_latest_release provide full details, while this tool returns a paginated list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (when a paginated list of basic release info is needed) and explicitly points to alternatives (get_release/get_latest_release for full details). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a read operation ('List') and describes return content and webhook behavior. It does not disclose potential side effects or auth requirements, but for a list endpoint the safety profile is evident from the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a brief background on webhooks. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains key return fields (IDs, URLs, event types). It covers purpose, pagination, and webhook context. It lacks error scenarios or permission details, but for a straightforward list tool this is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination and return fields but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's existing property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool 'List webhooks configured for a GitFlic project with pagination', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_webhook (single) and create/update/delete webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates this is for listing all webhooks for a project, with pagination support. It provides context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the 'list' vs 'get' distinction is implied by sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a behavioral consequence (resolved discussions are typically collapsed in the GitFlic UI), which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, permissions, or error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy: the first states the action, the second provides the UI consequence and an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 4 well-documented parameters. Description covers action, consequence, and complementary tool. It does not mention return value, but for a state-changing operation this is often implicit and not a critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each property clearly defined (e.g., 'Discussion UUID to resolve'). The description adds no additional parameter nuance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Mark as resolved' with clear resource 'discussion thread'. It explains the effect ('indicating the topic has been addressed') and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_mr_discussion or reply_mr_discussion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit alternative 'Use list_mr_discussions to check which discussions are still open.' This gives clear context for pre-checking but does not detail when to prefer other discussion mutations like delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It adds context that the restart does not re-run the entire pipeline, but it does not explain what happens to the job's state, artifacts, or whether the job must be in a specific state (e.g., failed) to restart.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a clear use case. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with fully documented parameters. The description covers the key distinction from full pipeline restarts and the retry use case. However, it omits any prerequisites or post-conditions (e.g., job must be failed, or that a new job run is triggered), which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond referring to a 'specific CI/CD job', which aligns with job_id but does not enrich understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool restarts a specific CI/CD job, distinguishing it from restarting the entire pipeline. The verb 'restart' and resource 'specific CI/CD job' are precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear use case: retrying a single failed job while keeping other completed jobs intact. This implies when to use it and hints at not using it for full pipeline restarts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like restart_pipeline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the new branch will point to the origin branch's HEAD, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention failure modes (e.g., if the branch already exists), required permissions, or whether the operation modifies the remote repository. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a practical tip. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a good overview, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out potential error conditions and the nature of the return value. It is complete enough for a simple operation but could be more robust.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between newBranch and originBranch (the new branch points to the origin's HEAD). This enriches the schema's 'base branch to create from' description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new branch from an existing one'). It also elaborates on the behavior (pointing to the same commit) and differentiates from sibling tools like create_tag or create_merge_request, as it explicitly focuses on branches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_branches to verify existing branches first.' This gives clear context for successful usage, though it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools for other operations. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('Get detailed information') and what it returns, implicitly indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior on nonexistent projects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first precisely lists the purpose and return fields, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It lists all return fields, clarifies the parameters are aliases, and gives usage advice. No significant gaps exist.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, with descriptions for owner ('Project owner alias') and project ('Project alias'). The description reinforces these are aliases but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed information about a specific GitFlic project', and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, description, default branch, language, topics, transport URLs, visibility). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects which list multiple projects, and search_projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises 'Use this to get project metadata before performing other operations', giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is well-defined and helps the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'The reply appears as posted by the authenticated user,' which is useful. However, it omits details about permissions, error handling if the discussion doesn't exist, and whether the discussion can be resolved. This is partial behavioral disclosure, not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the action, highlighting the prerequisite, and noting the author identity. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five required parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and a key prerequisite but doesn't mention return values, failure modes, or side effects. For a mutation tool without annotations, more context about expected outcomes or restrictions would be helpful, but it's adequate for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining that discussionUuid must come from list_mr_discussions or get_mr_discussion, giving the agent concrete source guidance for a key parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a reply to an existing discussion thread on a merge request.' It specifies the verb (add a reply), the resource (existing discussion thread on a merge request), and differentiates from siblings like create_mr_discussion by emphasizing 'existing' and 'reply.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit prerequisite context: 'Requires the discussion UUID from list_mr_discussions or get_mr_discussion.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and where to obtain the necessary identifier. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the phrasing implies it's for replies, not new threads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that closing does not merge and preserves the source branch, adding useful behavior. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or effects on discussions/approvals, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides distinct value: action, side effect, usage/alternative. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 3 fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and key side effect. It also differentiates from a sibling. Minor lack of return value expectations, but overall sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described (mr_id, owner, project). The description adds no extra param context, but none is needed given the schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool closes a merge request without merging, specifying the resource (merge request) and distinguishing it from merging. It also notes the source branch is preserved, making the action specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: when proposed changes are no longer needed or were rejected. It also names an alternative (cancel_merge_request) for withdrawing your own MR, providing clear when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating that branches must exist and that the tool 'internally resolves the project UUID,' which clarifies the alias-based project parameter. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what happens on failure, leaving clear gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds useful information: the core purpose, a prerequisite, optional behaviors, and a hidden implementation detail. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 parameters (6 required), all covered by schema descriptions. The description provides necessary prerequisites and options. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the created merge request object). For a create tool, the return is somewhat obvious, but the omission is a minor gap for a tool without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between sourceBranch and targetBranch (both must exist), the optional nature of squashCommit and removeSourceBranch, and the fact that 'project' is an alias resolved internally. These enrich the bare schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new merge request to merge one branch into another.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_merge_request or merge_merge_request. It also states the core purpose of branch merging.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a new merge request) and includes a prerequisite: 'Both branches must exist in the project.' It also mentions optional flags (squash commits, auto-delete). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in top-tier examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It covers the 15 MB limit, rejection of binary files with a 400 error, and the commitHash parameter accepting branch names or hashes. It does not mention other error cases (e.g., file not found) or authentication, but covers the most critical constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise constraints. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple file-read tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: format, size limit, binary rejection, and commitHash flexibility. It could add details about return format or error scenarios, but it is sufficiently complete for agent selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying commitHash accepts branch names and giving an example, but this is already implied in the schema's description of the parameter. No other parameters are enhanced.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads a single file's contents as plain text from a GitFlic repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_files and get_commit_files by focusing on content retrieval rather than listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is clear: use this tool when you need the raw text content of one specific file. It implicitly excludes binary files and large files, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond those constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the returned fields (title, description, branches, status, reviewers, conflict info, MR UUID) and notes the UUID's role for update_merge_request. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or mention side effects, the verb 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and the return payload details add valuable behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the action and identifier; the second lists return values and the use case. Every word adds value, with no redundant or off-topic information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Since there is no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return fields, which is crucial for an agent to understand the response. It also places the tool in a workflow ('before approving or merging'). It omits potential error scenarios or permission requirements, but for a straightforward read tool, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'local numeric ID' to clarify mr_id, but it doesn't enrich owner/project semantics. No significant additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full details of a merge request by its local numeric ID.' It specifies the resource (merge request) and the identifier type, and the list of returned fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_merge_requests or update_merge_request.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to inspect an MR before approving or merging.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is contextual but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's output in detail (title, description, tag name, attached files with download links, checksums) and clarifies the input type (UUID not tag). This is substantial behavioral transparency for a read-only tool, though it omits error handling and permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return details and a usage tip. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, return content, and a key prerequisite (list_releases). It does not address error cases or mention related tools like get_latest_release, but is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification that releaseUuid is not a tag name, but does not significantly deepen understanding of owner or project beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full details of a release by its UUID' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_latest_release and list_releases by emphasizing UUID-based lookup and explicitly noting 'not tag name'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance to use list_releases first to obtain UUIDs, which is a clear alternative/prerequisite. The 'not tag name' note also acts as a when-not guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention get_latest_release as an alternative for latest release, so slightly below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns branch names and last commit messages, and mentions pagination. However, it does not elaborate on sort order, pagination behavior (e.g., 0-based pages), or error conditions, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: purpose and pagination, return content, and alternative tools. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description is adequate: it states what is returned, mentions pagination, and directs to sibling tools for other use cases. No output schema exists, but the return content is explicitly described. Minor omissions like sort order or default page size are already covered by the input schema, so this feels complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only mentions pagination generically, while the schema already describes page and size with defaults and constraints. Thus, no additional value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 all branches of a GitFlic project with pagination.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('branches of a GitFlic project'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to get_branch for detailed info and get_default_branch for the main branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit alternatives: 'Use get_branch for detailed info about a specific branch, or get_default_branch to find the main branch.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus others, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that variable values may be masked for security, which is a key behavioral trait. It also notes that variables are available to all pipelines, adding context beyond the basic list operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or describe return format, so a small gap remains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second gives behavioral context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and an important behavioral note (masking). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what details are returned (e.g., variable names, scopes) or pagination, but it adequately equips an agent for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (owner and project) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('CI/CD environment variables'), and the scope ('configured for a project'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools, as no other tool mentions variables, and the added context about pipeline availability reinforces its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by defining what the tool does: use it to list CI/CD variables for a project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since no sibling variable tools exist and the context is clear, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (short hash, message, author, date), default branch behavior, and pagination, but does not mention ordering, error conditions, or the fact that it's a read-only operation. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description explains return fields and provides context on default behavior and alternatives. It lacks minor details like sorting order or result list format, but is sufficiently complete for a list operation with a rich input schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description adds minimal new info about parameters; it mentions pagination and branch default, both already present in the schema, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List commits'), the resource ('of a branch'), and includes pagination. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_commit by noting that get_commit provides full details for a specific commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the default branch behavior and names an alternative tool (get_commit) for a different use case, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns paginated tag names and messages, but does not mention sorting, permissions, or edge cases like empty lists. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: action, output, and sibling guidance. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description explains the return values (tag names and messages) and notes pagination. It gives context about tags and points to get_tag for more detail. Minor gaps like sort order and tag types exist, but overall it is sufficient for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (owner, project, page, size) are already documented. The description adds 'pagination' context but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all tags of a GitFlic project with pagination' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_tag (detailed info) and mentions the output contents (tag names and messages).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly directs users to 'Use get_tag for detailed info including the tagged commit', providing an alternative. The context about tags marking release points implies when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior (re-runs all jobs from the beginning) and the required state (completed or failed), but does not mention side effects, deletion of old runs, permissions, or how to monitor the restarted pipeline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target, the second clarifies the execution behavior and identification method. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple restart tool with 3 documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what happens, when it can be used, and how to identify the pipeline. Minor gaps include response behavior or progress tracking, but these are not critical for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds extra context for pipeline_id by explaining it is the 'local numeric ID from list_pipelines', which clarifies how to obtain and use it beyond the schema's 'Pipeline local ID'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Restart' with a clear resource ('CI/CD pipeline'), and elaborates with 'Re-runs all jobs from the beginning', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like restart_job and start_pipeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly states when to use the tool: for a 'previously completed or failed' pipeline. This implies it is not for running pipelines, and the phrase 'from the beginning' contrasts with restart_job, though no explicit alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing the tagName requirement and the specific 500 error if omitted. However, it oversimplifies by implying only releaseUuid and tagName are always required, while the schema shows title, owner, and project are also required. It does not cover authentication, permissions, or side effects like field overwriting.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the critical requirement and usage tip efficiently combined. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, a critical requirement, an error case, and a helpful hint to fetch current values. It leaves some ambiguity about partial updates, but the schema's required fields mitigate that gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description's added emphasis on releaseUuid and tagName as always required, plus the error consequence for tagName, provides extra semantic insight. It also clarifies which fields are updatable, going beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing release's title, description, tag association, or pre-release flag, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_release and delete_release by focusing on modifying an existing release.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using get_release to fetch current values before updating, which is clear contextual guidance. It also highlights the mandatory tagName requirement and its error consequence, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like create_release or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for disclosure. It reveals a critical behavioral trait: 'this replaces the entire webhook configuration' and states that all fields are required. This is essential for an agent to understand the destructive nature of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two sentences that get straight to the point: the action, the requirements, and the recommended workflow. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderately complex tool with six required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and behavioral caveats. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but these are less critical for an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little per-parameter detail. The global note about all fields being required is helpful but is also implicit in the schema's required array.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update an existing webhook') and lists the specific fields being modified ('URL, secret, and event subscriptions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook, get_webhook, and delete_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using get_webhook first to retrieve current values before modifying, providing a clear sequential workflow. It implies this tool is for existing webhooks only, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_webhook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the toggle behavior (adds if not approved, removes if already approved), which is a non-obvious and critical detail. It also mentions the 'authenticated user' aspect, indicating permission context. It could add more about side effects, but the key behavior is well covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long and immediately states the core behavior. Every sentence is useful: the first defines the toggle action, the second provides a critical prerequisite. No redundant or vague wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity, a complete input schema, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior and suggests a pre-check. It even notes the authenticated user context. There is no need for more detail about return values or edge cases for this simple toggle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes all three parameters (owner, project, mr_id) with clear short descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per the calibration, with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action (toggle approval) on a specific resource (merge request), and distinguishes it from related tools like merge_merge_request by explaining the actual behavior. The verb 'Toggle' and the conditional logic make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on how to use the tool (check approval state first) and implies that this tool is for approving/unapproving an MR. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance to use get_merge_request beforehand is valuable and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (detailed branch info, last commit details) and the verification purpose, implying that a non-existent branch will not be found. For a read-only tool, this is reasonably transparent, though it could mention error behavior or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and return content; the second gives a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has 3 well-documented parameters, and no output schema. The description covers the return payload and a practical use case, so it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (owner, project, branchName). It only repeats the idea of 'by name', which matches branchName.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('a specific branch by name'), followed by the key information included (last commit hash, message, author, timestamps). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_branches or get_default_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a concrete usage scenario ('Use this before creating a merge request to verify the branch exists'), which is clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_branches, but the 'specific branch' phrasing implies that, so this is slightly above average but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It reveals the return payload (title, description, status, assigned users, labels, timestamps) and the ID type, but it does not mention error behavior for invalid/unknown IDs or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and key identifier, the second lists the return values, and the third provides a workflow hint. There is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple fetch tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and how to obtain the required issue ID. The absence of error-handling details is not a critical gap for successful invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds useful semantic context by clarifying that issue_id is the 'local numeric ID' and advising the agent to use list_issues to discover valid IDs, which directly aids parameter selection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a specific issue by its local numeric ID') and clearly distinguishes the tool from list_issues and other issue-related operations. Enumerating the returned fields reinforces exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use list_issues first to discover available issue IDs,' establishing a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not enumerate when not to use the tool, but the context strongly implies this is the single-issue fetch counterpart to list_issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' and lists returned fields, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or any other behavioral caveats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states action and resource, the second covers returns and prerequisite. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even without an output schema, the description explains what data will be returned (name, status, stage, duration, runner info) and directs the user to obtain the required job ID. For a simple read tool, this is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying job_id is a 'local ID' and advising to use list_pipeline_jobs to discover it, which enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a specific CI/CD job by local ID, enumerating key return fields. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like restart_job or cancel_job.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'Use list_pipeline_jobs to find job IDs first.' This helps the agent sequence tools, though it does not provide a full when-not-to-use or alternative list beyond this prerequisite.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the return fields (tag name, tagged commit ID, message, creation date, lightweight/annotated), which clarifies the tool's output and implies a read-only operation without side effects. It does not describe failure scenarios or permissions, but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second gives a practical use case. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it, and the sibling comparison shows it is well-differentiated from list_tags and create_tag. No critical gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all three parameters (owner, project, tagName) with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating 'by name', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'a specific tag by name', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags and create_tag by focusing on detailed information for a single tag. It also states the intended use case for finding a commit associated with a release version.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for when to use this tool ('Use this to find the commit associated with a release version') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral outcome (status becomes CANCELLED) and implies author-only action via 'withdrawn by the author'. It could add more about reversibility or permissions, but core behavior is well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple cancel operation with fully documented params, the description covers purpose, outcome, and usage distinction. While no output schema is provided, the state change is the essential return information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the description doesn't need to add param details. It adds no extra param semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool cancels (withdraws) a merge request, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from close_merge_request, establishing unique purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises using close_merge_request for MRs reviewed and rejected by others, providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the critical behavioral constraint that code comments require all four line/path fields together, and general comments do not. This is valuable contextual behavior beyond a simple 'create' statement, but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Still, the core behavior is clearly communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the parameter combinations in a clear structured way. Every word earns its place, and the conditional guidance is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the key decision point (general vs. code comment) effectively. It does not explain return values, but for a creation tool that is less critical. The absence of explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., 'use reply_mr_discussion for existing discussions') is a minor gap, but the tool name and overall context make it adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes every parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by grouping parameters into two functional sets (general vs. code comment) and explicitly stating that the four line/path parameters must be provided together. This relationship is not evident from the schema alone, earning a higher score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb+resource pair: "Start a new discussion on a merge request." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_mr_discussion (which adds to an existing thread) and list/get/discussion tools. It also immediately signals the core action without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage guidance by explaining two distinct modes: general comments (message only) and line-level code comments (all four path/line fields required together). This gives clear context for when certain parameters are needed, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one. The guidance is implied but not exclusionary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tag prerequisite and optional archive attachment, but does not mention permissions, error behavior if the tag is missing, or side effects beyond creating the release.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with the action front-loaded. Each sentence adds prerequisite or optional detail without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema or annotations, the description gives a clear usage scenario: tag existence, required fields, and optional archive. It could mention return value or error handling, but the core selection and invocation information is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the archive is optional and that tagName must already exist, and by summarizing required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states 'Create a new release tied to an existing Git tag', naming the specific verb (create), resource (release), and binding to a Git tag. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update_release, get_release, and create_tag.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs 'The tag must already exist — use create_tag first if needed', providing when-to-use and an alternative. It also notes required fields (title, description, tag name), which helps select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states two critical behavioral traits: the action is permanent and cannot be undone, and it deletes all replies in addition to the thread. This is solid for a delete tool, though it does not mention potential error cases or permission requirements, but those are not typically expected in a one-sentence description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and irreversibility, and the second sentence provides actionable alternative guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the action, scope, irreversibility, and the alternative resolution tool. It does not need to explain return values because no output schema exists and the behavior is straightforward. Minor gaps like prerequisites are covered by required parameters in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, each clearly stating its purpose (e.g., 'Merge request local ID', 'Discussion UUID to delete'). The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Permanently delete a discussion thread and all its replies from a merge request.' This specifies the verb (delete), resource (discussion thread and replies), and scope (from a merge request). It also distinguishes itself from sibling resolve_mr_discussion by explicitly contrasting the two actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use resolve_mr_discussion to mark a discussion as resolved without deleting it.' This tells the agent when to use an alternative tool, which is the key differentiator. It implies that deletion is for permanent removal while resolution is for non-destructive handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It discloses that the action is irreversible ('This action cannot be undone'), specifies what is deleted ('release and its attached files'), and clarifies what is not deleted (Git tag). This covers the essential behavioral traits for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, the boundary about Git tag is useful, and the irreversibility warning is critical. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, irreversibility, and what remains (Git tag). It lacks explicit error conditions or permission requirements, but these are not critical for a well-specified delete operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only slight reinforcement by stating 'Identified by release UUID', which aligns with the releaseUuid parameter but does not enrich the semantics of owner or project beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a release and its attached files'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_branch or delete_webhook. It also clarifies a key boundary ('does not delete the associated Git tag'), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit exclusion ('This does not delete the associated Git tag'), which helps the agent decide if this tool is appropriate when a Git tag is involved. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., delete_tag) or state prerequisites like permissions, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that output 'can produce very large output' and describes the return type as 'detailed file changes with diff hunks'. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the 'Get' verb and diff context make it implicit, and the size warning is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences: the primary action, the return type, and a size warning with an alternative. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every sentence delivers useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('detailed file changes with diff hunks') and flags large output. It also names the alternative tool. It does not cover potential error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., valid commit hashes), but these are largely implied by the schema and the nature of the tool, so the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for parameters, each with a clear description (e.g., 'Source commit hash'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply refers to 'two commits' which aligns with the parameter names. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Get a full line-by-line diff between two commits', which is a specific verb+resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning get_commit_files as a lighter alternative for changed-file summaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides guidance: 'Use get_commit_files for a lightweight summary of changed files instead.' This tells the agent when to choose the alternative and implies this tool is for cases requiring a full detailed diff.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that both full and short hashes are accepted and lists the specific fields returned (commit message, author/committer identities, timestamps, parent IDs, verification status). This gives agents a clear expectation of the tool's output without overpromising. It doesn't mention auth or error handling, but for a read-only tool this is reasonable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence clearly states the action and target, and the second enumerates the return values. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the key return fields. It clarifies the hash parameter's allowed formats and the scope of the tool (single commit details). While it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid hashes or error responses, for a simple fetch tool the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important semantic that 'hash' accepts both full and short forms, which is not present in the schema. This directly enhances the agent's understanding of the parameter. Owner and project are only described as aliases in the schema, but the description doesn't add more, though the context is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and a clear resource ('specific commit by its hash'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_commits, get_commit_files, and diff_commits. It also specifies the lookup method (full or short hash), making the tool's function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: use this when you have a commit hash and need detailed commit information. It doesn't explicitly reference alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to select this tool over list_commits or get_commit_files. No exclusions are stated, but they are not necessary for this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the return contents (file paths, change types, added/removed line counts) and the limitation (no diff content). It does not mention error behavior or pagination, but for a straightforward read operation, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, what it returns, and what it does not do.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and explicitly contrasts with diff_commits. It could improve by mentioning how it relates to other commit-level tools like get_commit, but the core information needed to select and invoke the tool is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (hash, owner, project) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List all files changed in a specific commit') and clearly identifies the resource (files in a commit). It also differentiates from sibling tools by stating what it returns (paths, change types, line counts) and what it does not return, pointing to diff_commits for diff content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Does not return the actual diff content — use diff_commits for that.' This names an alternative tool and clarifies when not to use this tool, which is sufficient even without broader context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and discloses what data will be returned, including the secret. It does not mention authentication or potential error scenarios, but for a simple getter this is adequate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a direct usage pointer. Every word earns its place with no redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns and how to obtain the required identifier. It doesn't detail the response format or error cases, but these are typical for such operations and are partially covered by the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for all three parameters is 100%, with each parameter described (e.g., webhook_id described as 'Webhook UUID'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it gets full details of a specific webhook by UUID, naming concrete returned fields (callback URL, secret, subscribed events). The verb 'Get' plus resource context distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly directs the user to use list_webhooks first to find webhook UUIDs, providing a clear workflow step and distinguishing this tool as the detailed-view complement to the list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields (UUID, author, message preview, resolved status) and clarifies that discussions can be general or line-level comments. This goes beyond a simple 'list' and gives useful behavioral context, though it does not mention access requirements or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences with no fluff. It opens with the core purpose, then lists return values, and ends with a useful sibling pointer—each sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description helpfully specifies the return fields. It also covers pagination and the two types of discussions. It does not mention default page/size or edge cases, but for a simple list tool with a well-explained schema, this is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions pagination, which partly relates to the page/size parameters, but adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discussion threads on a merge request') with clear scope and pagination. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_mr_discussion by noting that the latter provides full thread details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states an alternative: 'Use get_mr_discussion for full thread details.' This implies that this tool is for summary/listing when full details are not needed, providing clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that private projects are included and scope is limited to owned projects. It also mentions filtering capability. It does not explicitly mention read-only nature or pagination behavior, but those are less critical for a listing tool and partly evident from schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each purposeful. The first sentence states the core function, the second explains filtering, and the third differentiates from siblings. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, filtering, and alternatives. It does not describe return format or pagination defaults, but those are either conventional or encoded in parameter descriptions. Slight gap in not noting default page/size behavior, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by explaining the q parameter ('Supports filtering by title with the q parameter'), but does not go beyond the schema for page and size. Overall it reinforces rather than significantly augments schema semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List projects owned by the authenticated user, including private ones.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by clarifying ownership scope. It also names alternative tools for public and shared projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly specifies when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'To find public projects from other users, use search_projects. To list projects where you are a collaborator, use list_shared_projects.' This is clear, actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that only public projects are returned, which is a key behavioral trait beyond the schema (which does not indicate visibility). However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, auth needs, or error cases, so it's not fully transparent, but the core behavior is well-covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second adds a crucial visibility constraint and points to an alternative. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with 3 self-descriptive parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and usage distinction. It doesn't describe the return format, but this is a straightforward list operation and the lack of output schema is mitigated by the clear purpose and parameter docs. Slightly more detail about pagination or response structure would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters (userAlias, page, size). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('public projects'), and a scope ('owned by a specific GitFlic user'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling list_projects by noting it only returns public projects, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use context: this tool is for listing public projects of a specific user. It also names the alternative (list_projects) for listing your own projects including private ones, providing clear guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains pagination and the returned fields (project alias, title, owner), and clearly states the public-only limitation. It stops short of detailing search semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching) but is sufficiently transparent for a simple search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information: the action/scope, the result shape, and the key limitation with alternative. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description gives a useful preview of the return contents ('project alias, title, and owner') and pagination, which is essential for an agent. It lacks explicit mention of the overall response envelope (e.g., total count, next page token), but for a search tool of this simplicity, the information is sufficient for correct invocation and basic expectation setting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond noting the search is by title and that results are paginated, which is reflected in the schema. Thus, the description provides no significant additional value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Search for public projects across all of GitFlic by title') with a defined scope. It also distinguishes from closely related sibling tools by explicitly noting that private projects are handled by list_projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit guidance is provided: 'Only finds public projects — use list_projects for your own private projects.' This tells when to use this tool and directs the user to an alternative for the excluded case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses partial update behavior (only provided fields changed) and the use of local numeric ID instead of UUID, adding valuable context beyond basic mutation. It does not cover return values or permissions, but the essential behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each additional detail earns its place (partial update, ID type, get_issue prerequisite). No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job covering the key operational aspects: update scope, partial update behavior, ID type, and a prerequisite. It lacks return value information, but the essentials for invoking the tool are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, satisfying the baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that only provided fields are updated, thereby explaining how the optional title/description/status parameters interact, and reinforces the issue_id semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates an existing issue's title, description, or status, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_issue and get_issue by highlighting modification of existing issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance to use get_issue first to see current values, which is a helpful prerequisite. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or contrast with alternatives, but the partial update semantics and 'existing issue' phrasing imply the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond basic 'update' by explaining partial update semantics ('Only the provided fields will be changed') and permission requirements ('Requires owner or admin permissions'). It does not mention return values or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and fields, the second provides crucial semantic and authorization details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, fields, partial-update behavior, and permissions. It does not describe the response format, but that is less critical given the straightforward nature of the tool and the richness of the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are modified, which is a semantic about parameter optionality and partial updates, thereby enriching the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a project's settings' and enumerates specific fields (title, description, programming language, topics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_issue or update_merge_request by resource and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: 'Only the provided fields will be changed' signals partial updates, and 'Requires owner or admin permissions' sets a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (changed files with line counts) and default branch behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'compare' implies non-mutating behavior. This is adequate transparency for a simple comparison tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then provides behavior and an alternative. Every word is useful and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, return format, default branch behavior, and a sibling alternative. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's only param-related note (base defaults to default branch) is already present in the schema. Thus the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares two branches and lists files that differ, with added/removed line counts. It distinguishes itself from diff_commits by explicitly mentioning that tool for line-by-line diffs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit alternative (diff_commits for detailed line-by-line diffs) and explains behavior when base is omitted (compares against default branch). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context beyond the schema: the annotated vs lightweight tag distinction and the conditional requirement of commitId/branchName. This is sufficient for simple tag creation, though it doesn't cover edge cases like overwriting existing tags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase earns its place. It covers purpose, parameter conditions, and tag types without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tag-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It explains the conditional requirements, the optional message behavior, and the project context, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that commitId and branchName are alternatives (at least one required, even though not in the required list) and explaining that message creates an annotated tag. This goes beyond the per-parameter descriptions in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new Git tag in a GitFlic project, using the specific verb 'Create' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags and get_tag by focusing on creation, and there are no other create-tag tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: it specifies that either commitId or branchName must be provided, and explains the difference between annotated (with message) and lightweight (without) tags. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavioral trait that the endpoint returns 405 due to a GitFlic API limitation and clarifies it is not an MCP server bug. This is highly transparent for a tool that will currently fail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first states the core action, the second delivers a necessary warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that is currently non-functional, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, that it's broken, and what to expect. The schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema is needed given the tool's current failure state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all three parameters (owner, project, branchName) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 for 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete a branch from a GitFlic project' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_branch or list_branches, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not use until GitFlic fixes the API.' It explains the reason (405 error) but does not suggest alternative tools or methods, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the deletion is permanent ('cannot be undone') and that the webhook 'will stop receiving events immediately,' covering the most critical behavioral traits: destructiveness and immediacy. This is transparent and sufficient for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the immediate effect and permanence. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with three parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It specifies the action, the permanent nature, and the immediate consequence. No additional context is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (owner, project, webhook_id), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it simply reaffirms that the webhook belongs to a project. No further parameter details are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Permanently delete a webhook from a project.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (webhook), distinct from sibling tools like get_webhook, create_webhook, or update_webhook. The additional context about immediate effect and irreversibility further clarifies the tool's unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when a webhook should be permanently removed and stop receiving events. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., temporary disable via update_webhook), but the context is clear for a straightforward delete operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only (via 'Get'), requires an authenticated context, and lists the returned fields. It doesn't detail error handling or additional response fields, but the essentials are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences front-load the core action, with the second sentence adding practical usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and expected return fields. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, even within a large sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to describe. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: getting the currently authenticated user's profile, including specific fields (username, full name, email, avatar URL). The phrase 'currently authenticated' distinguishes it from the sibling get_user, which likely fetches a user by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly gives use cases: 'verify the current user identity' and 'get the user alias needed for other API calls.' It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states this is a public profile endpoint, lists the specific return fields, and explicitly calls out the email exclusion. While it does not mention authentication requirements or side effects, the public-read nature of the tool makes these omissions acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource ('Get a GitFlic user's public profile'), then immediately lists return fields and the email limitation with an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description fully covers purpose, inputs, outputs, and key exclusions. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by naming the return fields. It also differentiates from the most relevant sibling (get_me), completing the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the userAlias parameter already described as 'User alias (username)'. The description reinforces this by saying 'by their alias (username)', but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: getting a GitFlic user's public profile by alias, and enumerates the returned fields (name, avatar, cover image). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_me tool by explicitly noting the email exclusion, making its scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by stating what the tool does not return (email) and directly recommending an alternative tool (get_me) for the authenticated user's email. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context relative to a key sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (comment ID, author, truncated text at 120 chars, timestamp) and pagination behavior. It does not mention ordering or read-only nature, but the 'list' verb and the specificity of return data are sufficient for common use cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide a valuable cross-reference. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return fields, truncation behavior, and the distinction from get_issue. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 5 parameters (page, size, owner, project, issue_id) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description's only param-related mention is 'pagination', which is also covered by page/size in the schema. Thus it adds no significant extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List comments on a specific issue with pagination', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_issue (which returns the issue description) and add_issue_comment (which creates comments), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use get_issue to see the issue description itself — this tool only returns discussion comments.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative, and clarifies its scope (only discussion comments, not the issue body).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (local ID, title, status, branches), enumerates possible status values, and mentions pagination. It doesn't discuss auth or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three succinct sentences: action+scope, return fields, and pointer to get_merge_request. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It also covers the core semantics (GitFlic MRs, pagination, summary fields) and points to the detailed tool, making it complete for this list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning pagination, which relates to page/size. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 GitFlic project with pagination.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('merge requests'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns summary info and directing users to get_merge_request for full details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
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: 'Use get_merge_request for full details.' It also clarifies the GitFlic equivalent to GitHub Pull Requests, helping users understand its role relative to other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return scope (job IDs, names, statuses, stages) and implies a read-only list operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or other potential side effects, though the schema does include page/size parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and provides alternative tool guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully explains the tool's purpose, return fields, and when to use alternatives. Even without an output schema or annotations, it gives sufficient context for the agent to select and call the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and all parameters have meaningful descriptions (owner, project, pipeline_id, page, size). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List individual jobs within a specific CI/CD pipeline.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_job and list_job_artifacts as alternatives for different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use get_job for detailed info about a specific job, or list_job_artifacts to see build artifacts.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior, specific return fields (IDs, statuses, branch/tag names, creation dates), and prerequisites. However, it does not mention error conditions or auth requirements, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, return fields, and prerequisite/alternative. No redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, return fields, prerequisites, and a pointer to the related tool. Even without an output schema or annotations, it gives an agent sufficient context to decide when to call it and what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail about the meaning of owner, project, page, or size beyond the schema, only referencing pagination generically.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'List CI/CD pipelines of a GitFlic project with pagination', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'list_pipeline_jobs' by directing users there for individual jobs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states a clear prerequisite: 'Requires .gitflic-ci.yaml and a registered runner in the project', telling when the tool is usable. It also provides an explicit alternative, 'Use list_pipeline_jobs to see individual jobs within a pipeline', guiding tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope (collaborator vs owner) and implies the need for authentication. While it does not mention rate limits or side effects, this is a read-only list operation and the description adequately conveys behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, made of three short sentences that lead with the primary purpose, mention filtering, and then point to the alternative. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is complete for a simple list tool: it states what is listed, that it supports title filtering, and directs to list_projects for owned projects. Pagination is already documented in the schema, and no output schema exists, so further return-value explanation is unnecessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for q, page, and size. The description adds 'filtering by title' which aligns with the q parameter, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists projects where the authenticated user is a collaborator (not the owner), using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_projects, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by naming the alternative tool for owned projects: 'To list projects you own, use list_projects instead.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool vs. the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: shows one directory level, includes last commit metadata, and defaults to root when filepath is omitted. This is valuable context beyond the basic function, though it doesn't mention error handling or sorting, which are minor for a list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage scope and alternative. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with fully documented parameters, this description is sufficient. It explains the tool's scope, default behavior, and output metadata, providing a complete picture. The absence of an output schema is compensated by mentioning 'last commit metadata' as part of the output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value to the 'filepath' parameter by explaining the default behavior and the one-level restriction, which is not fully captured by the schema's 'Directory path (empty for root)'. This enhances parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List files and directories at a specific path in a repository with last commit metadata.' It names a specific resource (files and directories) and action (list), and further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_files_recursive by explicitly stating it shows only one directory level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Defaults to root directory if filepath is omitted' and 'Shows one directory level only — use list_files_recursive for a full tree view.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and directs to the alternative for a more comprehensive listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required parameter causing 400 errors, the depth limit (0-10), and the flat tree output. Although it doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or symlink behavior, it provides core behavioral context for a read-only listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/return, required parameter warning, and alternative tool. No redundancy or fluff; information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for invocation: return data, required parameters, error behavior, depth usage, and alternative tool. It is complete for an agent to select and correctly call this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying commitHash (required, use branch name, 400 error without it) and depth (limit 0-10). This enriches parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List all files in a repository recursively as a flat tree') and specifies return content (file paths, extensions, sizes). It also distinguishes from the sibling 'list_files' by noting it is for browsing a single directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: commitHash is required (with example branch name), depth parameter usage is explained with limits, and list_files is explicitly recommended for single-directory browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gitflic-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/revenant20/gitflic-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/revenant20/gitflic-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gitflic-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/revenant20/gitflic-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/revenant20/gitflic-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/revenant20/gitflic-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server