GitLab MCP Server

by skmprb

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap: create_commit can also create/update/delete files, making it redundant with create_file, update_file, and delete_file. Additionally, close_issue duplicates functionality available via update_issue with state_event. These overlaps could cause misselection, though descriptions help clarify.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., archive_project, get_project_issues, create_merge_request). The only slight redundancy is 'merge_merge_request', but it still adheres to the pattern. Naming is predictable and clear.
Tool Count3/5
With 54 tools, the server covers a wide range of GitLab operations but feels heavy. Several tools are niche (e.g., list_starred_projects, clone_group_repositories) or redundant, suggesting the set could be trimmed. A count of 20-30 would be more appropriate for the scope.
Completeness3/5
Core CRUD operations for projects, issues, branches, tags, files, merge requests, and pipelines are present. However, notable gaps exist: no way to comment on issues or merge requests, no update/close for merge requests, and no creation of project hooks. These missing features limit agent workflows.
Average 3.1/5 across 54 of 54 tools scored.
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 MIT License.
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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It does not mention side effects (e.g., no mutation is expected), required permissions, or response format. The description merely lists parameters without 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes a redundant parameter list that duplicates the input schema. While not verbose, it could be more efficient by omitting the parameter details and focusing on usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return values despite an output schema existing, nor does it provide any context on how the comparison works (e.g., what is compared, output structure).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types already present in the input schema. It does not explain formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'from_branch' and 'to_branch' must exist).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Compare two branches', which is a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from similar tools like 'create_branch' or 'delete_branch', it does not explicitly differentiate from other comparison or diff tools that might exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_commits' or 'merge_merge_request'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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 provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states deletion without mentioning destructive nature, permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise but essentially reduces to function signature. Could be more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not described, the description is too minimal to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should compensate. It lists parameters but adds no meaning beyond their names (e.g., no format, constraints, or examples).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a tag' with clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like delete_branch or delete_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided.
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 exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists forks, implying a read operation, but omits pagination behavior, rate limiting, authentication details (token is optional but not explained), and any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and mostly front-loaded, but it lacks a structured format (e.g., Returns section, example). While brevity can be a virtue, the lack of structure reduces clarity for an agent parsing multiple tools.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description fails to address common list-tool behaviors like pagination, sorting, or filtering. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, this gap leaves the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minor value by noting token is optional and ctx is auto-injected, but for project_id it only repeats 'GitLab project ID' without adding format or constraints. More detail on parameters is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List forks') and the resource ('a project'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'fork_project' (which creates a fork). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other list-related tools (e.g., get_project_branches, list_projects). There is no mention of context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
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?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the fact that it deletes a branch. It does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., impact on merge requests). With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two lines covering purpose and parameters. It is front-loaded with the action. However, the use of a Python docstring-style block (Args:) is not standard for MCP descriptions and may be less readable for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature of the tool, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), error cases, or idempotency. An agent cannot determine if deleting a non-existent branch fails or succeeds silently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with one-line explanations (e.g., 'GitLab Personal Access Token (optional)'), adding slight value over the schema's 0% coverage. However, the required parameters 'project_id' and 'branch_name' are not explained beyond their variable names, leaving ambiguity about format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a branch') and the resource ('branch'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_branch' or 'compare_branches' by explicitly naming the delete operation. However, it lacks specificity about the GitLab context, though the 'project_id' parameter implies it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting a tag or project). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the branch not being the default or having no active merge requests. The description assumes the agent knows when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only repeats the tool name without disclosing effects, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with a clear 'Args' section listing parameters; no unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Very sparse description for a mutation tool; does not explain result, permissions, or relation to sibling tools.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meanings for project_id and token, but lacks details on token scope or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Unarchive a project') with the specific resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'archive_project'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archive_project) or prerequisites (e.g., project must be archived).
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 provided, so description carries full burden. It only lists parameters and indicates token is optional. Does not disclose mutation effects, required permissions, or any side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with a bullet list of parameters. Concise but sparse; no wasted words but could benefit from more structure or context. Not overly verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters (4 required) and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but critical context like token behavior, project existence checks, or success/failure states is missing.
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?
Input schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). Description adds brief meaning to each parameter (e.g., 'project_id: GitLab project ID'), which adds value beyond the schema's type-only definitions, but lacks details like constraints or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Create a merge request' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'merge_merge_request' (merge vs create) and 'get_merge_requests' (retrieve), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'merge_merge_request'. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage from context.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and idempotency. It only says 'Delete a GitLab project' without addressing irreversibility, required access levels, or impact on associated resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one line plus parameter list), which is efficient but lacks essential prose. The structure is clear with a heading and parameter descriptions, but it is under-specified for a destructive operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain return values (output schema exists), error conditions, and behavioral nuances. It fails to provide this context, making it incomplete.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning: project_id is identified as 'GitLab project ID', token as 'Personal Access Token (optional)', ctx as 'automatically injected'. This adds value, though more detail (e.g., project ID format) would improve.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a GitLab project', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_project or update_project, but lacks detail on what deletion entails (e.g., permanent vs soft delete).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use delete vs alternatives like archive_project. No prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or consequences (e.g., irreversibility) are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision context.
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 and description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, rate limits, or default behavior for optional token).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise with clear parameter list. Could be more structured but no wasted sentences.
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?
Output schema exists so return values not needed, but description lacks behavioral context for a simple read tool. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%; description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names (e.g., token optional, ctx injected). Lacks details on valid values or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Describes retrieving repository tags with specific verb and resource. Clear but lacks detail on what tags are; distinct from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_branches or create_tag. No context provided.
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 must disclose behavior. It only says 'Cherry-pick a commit' without detailing that it creates a new commit, requires permissions, or may cause conflicts. The behavioral impact is underspecified.
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 and front-loaded with the purpose. The argument list is neatly structured without extraneous information. Every part serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of cherry-pick operations and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, output format, or how it interacts with git history. Agent may lack necessary context to use 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?
The description adds meaning to parameters like 'Commit SHA to cherry-pick' and 'Target branch for cherry-pick', which goes beyond the schema's property names. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., format, examples) would be beneficial. The parameter descriptions are minimal but functional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Cherry-pick a commit' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like create_commit or revert_commit by using the term 'cherry-pick'. However, it lacks further context about what cherry-pick entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conflict resolution, or situations where cherry-pick is inappropriate. Siblings like revert_commit exist but no differentiation is provided.
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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists parameters and mentions that ctx is automatically injected, but fails to describe permissions, side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), or return value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but the parameter list duplicates information already in the schema. The inclusion of 'ctx: MCP context (automatically injected)' is somewhat unnecessary, making it less concise than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, many siblings, an output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not address common questions like behavior when the file already exists, or how the output schema relates to the creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage; the tool description merely restates parameter names without adding any explanation of formats, constraints, or expected values beyond what the schema's type and title fields provide.
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 'Create a new file in repository,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like delete_file and update_file, and from the broader create_commit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_file or create_commit. The description only states what it does, with no exclusions or context for selection.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is destructive (creates a mutable tag), what happens if the tag name already exists, or authentication requirements. The optional token parameter is noted but its absence's effect is unclear.
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 extremely concise, using a simple bullet list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence is essential and directly to the point, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide context about tag creation nuance (lightweight vs annotated tags), required permissions, error states, or expected outcomes. For a creation tool, additional completeness is needed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides one-line explanations for each parameter, adding context beyond titles (e.g., 'GitLab project ID' vs 'Project Id'). However, explanations like 'Source branch/commit' for ref are minimal and lack format guidance. The injection of ctx is clarified. This is adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: 'Create a new tag.' This identifies the verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like create_branch or delete_tag by focusing on tags, but does not explicitly distinguish from other tag operations or mention the type of tag (lightweight vs annotated).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_branch or when a tag should be created locally vs via API. The description omits context like prerequisites (e.g., branch existence) or scenarios where 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'get recent commits', implying a read operation, but does not define 'recent', mention pagination, rate limits, or any constraints. The auto-injected context is noted, but overall behavioral detail is sparse.
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 short and efficiently structured, with a purpose sentence followed by a bullet-point argument list. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what constitutes 'recent' or what the return format looks like. It lacks details on error cases, scope (e.g., only one ref), and does not leverage the output schema to reduce the burden. For a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema, completeness is insufficient.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning: project_id is a GitLab ID, ref_name is branch name, token is optional, ctx is auto-injected. This adds value beyond the schema types and defaults, but is minimal and partly repeats schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'commits for a project', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from related sibling tools like 'get_repository_files' or 'compare_branches', which also read data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_commit' or 'cherry_pick_commit'. The description only explains its basic function without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements (token optional but not explained), error handling, rate limits, or pagination. The description is too minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The args list could be seen as redundant given the schema, but it provides some explanatory value for token and ctx. Overall efficient with no unnecessary sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 params, 2 required, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what jobs are, if there are limits, filtering options, or any notes on permissions or rate limits. The agent lacks sufficient context for confident use.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'token' (GitLab Personal Access Token, optional) and 'ctx' (automatically injected), but project_id and pipeline_id are just repeated without additional context. Minimal value added 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 'Get jobs for a specific pipeline,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pipelines that retrieve pipelines rather than jobs. No tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest sibling tools like get_pipelines for listing pipelines. The implied usage is only that you need a pipeline ID.
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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list, pagination behavior, or rate limits. It only states 'Get project labels' with no further detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is redundant with the schema but does not waste many words. A streamlined description without the parameter list could be more concise.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks mention that it returns all labels for a project. It does not explain the structure of labels or provide usage hints.
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 minimal meaning beyond the schema by specifying that the token is optional and ctx is auto-injected. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but lacks comprehensive parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get project labels.' which clearly identifies the action and resource. While there is no differentiation from siblings, no sibling tool with a similar name exists, so the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose if the tool is read-only, what happens when path is omitted, or any permission requirements. Only parameter names and brief descriptions are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with a clear summary. The bulleted list of parameters is structured and easy to parse, though slightly verbose for the parameter explanations.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and the complexity of siblings, the description should clarify that 'get' means listing files and directories, not file contents. It omits this distinction and fails to fully specify the tool's behavior, leaving it somewhat incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'GitLab project ID', 'Directory path (optional)'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema titles. However, details like valid formats or constraints are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get repository files and directories' which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish between listing files and getting file contents, especially given the sibling tool 'get_file_content'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_file_content', 'create_file', etc. The description merely lists parameters without any context about selection.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not mention required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description is purely declarative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with the main action in the first sentence, followed by a parameter list. It is efficiently structured but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention pagination, return format, or filtering capabilities, which are common for list operations.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It notes that 'token' is optional and 'ctx' is automatically injected, providing some context. However, it does not explain the role of project_id beyond 'GitLab project ID' or provide formatting details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List project webhooks' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from other list tools like list_projects or list_group_projects, which could be considered siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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 exist, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only operation but omits details on authentication requirements beyond an optional token, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to-the-point, using a docstring format. It front-loads the purpose and lists arguments efficiently. A slight improvement could be omitting the args list if redundant with schema, but it adds clarity.
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?
Given the simplicity (list tool, has output schema), the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, it misses contextual details like pagination behavior, error conditions, or the default behavior when token is omitted.
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 0%, so the description adds value by briefly explaining each parameter (user_id, token optional, ctx auto-injected). However, it lacks constraints, formats, or examples beyond basic identifications.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 (projects), and the scope (owned by a specific user). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' and 'list_group_projects' by the user filter, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'list_group_projects'. No exclusions or context are given.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Search for projects' without explaining what fields are searched (e.g., name, description), pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one line plus parameter list), which is efficient. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical information; the first line is effectively the tool name. It could be more structured with a brief behavioral summary before the Args section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of searching across projects (likely multiple result pages, filtering criteria) and the presence of an output schema (which is not described), the description is incomplete. It omits details like pagination, result format, and how the search query is matched, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides 'Search query' for the query parameter, which is a minor improvement over the schema (which only has type). For token, it clarifies it's a GitLab PAT, and for ctx, it notes automatic injection. This adds some semantics, but the query description is still vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search for projects,' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_projects' since both involve retrieving projects, leaving ambiguity about the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or 'get_project'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios, forcing the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. As a mutation tool, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, using a structured docstring format. No redundant sentences, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description does not mention return values, errors, or post-conditions. Lacks complete context for a tool that modifies 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?
Schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). Description adds some meaning by listing allowed values for 'group_access' and format for 'expires_at', but overall adds limited value beyond schema field names.
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 identifies the action ('Share project with a group') and the resource (project to group). It differentiates from sibling tool 'unshare_project_with_group'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites or conditions under which sharing is appropriate.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely restates the operation ('remove') without detailing consequences, authorization needs, rate limits, or irreversibility. The token and ctx parameters are listed but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, but the structure is suboptimal for MCP: a single sentence followed by a parameter list that mirrors the schema. It is concise but not front-loaded with the most critical information for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though not described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or idempotency, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only lists parameter names without adding meaning, constraints, or examples. The schema already provides names and types, so the description adds minimal value beyond redundancy.
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 ('Remove project sharing with a group') and the target resource. It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'share_project_with_group', 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'share_project_with_group'. There's no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or typical contexts where removing group sharing is appropriate.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only restates the purpose ('get users') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output structure. Minimal behavioral context beyond purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and efficient, using one sentence plus a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the Args format could be integrated more elegantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about the return format (e.g., user roles, pagination), error conditions, and the effect of the optional token. Incomplete for a tool with no 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 coverage is 0%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The 'Args' block adds meaning: 'project_id' is a GitLab project ID, 'token' is an optional PAT, 'ctx' is auto-injected. This provides necessary context beyond the schema schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves users with access to a project, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_project (project info) and get_group_members (group-level), though not explicitly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the basic function without context on usage conditions.
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 description must disclose behavior. It does not explain side effects (e.g., ownership changes, project location, or if original is deleted), only the action 'transfer'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise but structured as a plain list of arguments, lacking a clear summary or front-loaded purpose. It is functional but not well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 params and an output schema, the description omits behavioral details (e.g., what happens to the project after transfer, permissions needed). Leaves significant gaps for safe 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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description provides the only meaning. It lists parameters with minimal explanations (e.g., 'namespace: Target namespace (user or group)'). This is adequate but not rich.
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 'Transfer a project to a new namespace', which is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like archive_project or delete_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., share_project_with_group) or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context for triggering the transfer.
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?
With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits. It only states 'Archive a project' without disclosing side effects, reversibility (though unarchive_project sibling hints), or authentication requirements. The token parameter is optional but not explained when it is needed.
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 extremely concise with one sentence and an Args list. No unnecessary words, well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not needed. However, the description lacks context about the tool's effect, prerequisites, and how it differs from similar operations. For a tool with 3 parameters and a required one, more detail would improve completeness.
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 0%, but the description explains each parameter: project_id is a GitLab project ID, token is an optional PAT, ctx is injected automatically. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Archive a project' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unarchive_project' or 'delete_project', and provides no additional context about what archiving entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_project, unarchive_project). There is no mention of prerequisites such as project existence or user permissions.
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 provided; description merely states 'Close an issue' without detailing side effects, permissions, or state requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very short but includes a docstring-style argument list; it is concise but lacks richness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given missing annotations and simple tool, the description fails to mention success indicators, error conditions, or prerequisites, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description restates parameter names with minimal clarification (e.g., 'GitLab project ID') but adds no meaningful semantics 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 'Close an issue' clearly states the verb 'close' and the resource 'issue', and distinguishes from siblings like 'create_issue' or 'update_issue'.
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 an issue needs to be closed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'update_issue'.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning authentication needs, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The minimal description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 extremely concise with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the tool is a simple getter and the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks mention of any authentication state or error conditions, which could be important for agents without prior knowledge.
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 meaning to the parameters by explaining 'token' as a GitLab Personal Access Token and noting that 'ctx' is automatically injected. This is helpful given the 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of the token.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current user information', which is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_project', which also use 'get'. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only mentions that token is optional and ctx is auto-injected. It lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (5 lines) but repeats parameter details already present in the schema. It could be more efficient by front-loading the core action and omitting the redundant docstring.
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 is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It does not cover error cases or the structure of the returned member list.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It identifies group_id as 'GitLab group ID', token as 'GitLab Personal Access Token (optional)', and ctx as 'MCP context (automatically injected)'. This adds some value but does not fully compensate for missing format constraints or defaults.
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 'Get members of a GitLab group.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('members of a GitLab group'), which uniquely identifies its purpose 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when or when not to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
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 present, so the description must carry the burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe, or idempotent. While 'get' implies reading, the absence of any behavioral disclosure (e.g., no side effects, authentication needs) is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with a clear first sentence and a structured list of parameters. No extraneous information. However, the list format is slightly verbose for a tool with only four parameters.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, the description lacks information about pagination, error handling, or what happens when the project_id is invalid. For a list endpoint, these are relevant omissions.
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 0% coverage (no property descriptions), but the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation. Particularly helpful is the enumeration of allowed values for 'state' (opened, closed, all). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'issues for a GitLab project', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like close_issue or update_issue, which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that this tool is for listing issues, not for modifying or closing them. Usage context is entirely inferred from the name.
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?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral details such as authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. Only mentions that token is optional and ctx is auto-injected.
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 very concise, with a clear purpose statement and brief parameter explanations. No unnecessary information.
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?
For a simple tool with an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. It is minimally 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?
The description adds meaning to parameters (e.g., token is a Personal Access Token) beyond the schema, but does not fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. Details like project_id format are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves programming languages used in a project, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_project or get_project_branches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions.
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, and the description lacks behavioral details such as read-only nature, pagination mechanics, rate limits, or idempotency. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from the description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The arg list is clearly formatted. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the numerous sibling tools (over 50), the description is incomplete: it lacks disambiguation, behavioral transparency, and comprehensive parameter guidance. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but overall context is insufficient.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining parameters: 'group_name: GitLab group name or path', 'per_page: Number of projects per page (max 100)', and 'ctx: MCP context (automatically injected)'. However, it does not specify valid formats or constraints beyond max per_page.
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 in a group by group name', specifying the verb (List), resource (projects), and qualifier (in a group by group name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_projects' (all projects) and 'list_user_projects'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_projects', 'list_groups', or 'search_projects'. The description does not mention when this tool is appropriate or when other tools should be preferred.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only mentions that the token is optional and ctx is auto-injected, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination is supported, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the 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 extremely concise with a single-line purpose and a short list of parameters. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy.
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 an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks information on pagination, ordering, or any limitations. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining user_id as 'GitLab user ID', token as 'GitLab Personal Access Token (optional)', and ctx as 'MCP context (automatically injected)'. However, this only slightly extends beyond the parameter names; it does not provide constraints, formats, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists projects starred by a specific user, specifying the verb 'List' and the resource 'projects starred by a specific user'. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_projects and list_user_projects, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or star_project. It only lists parameters without context on intended use cases or exclusions.
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 exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, destructive nature, or potential side effects (e.g., pipeline triggers). The description simply states the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured as a brief docstring with a list of parameters. It is concise and easy to scan, though the parameter list could be formatted more compactly.
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?
An output schema exists (not shown), so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context on error handling, merge conditions, or how to interpret the result, making it incomplete for a merge operation.
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 descriptions are minimal (only titles and types), but the tool description adds contextual docstrings for each parameter, explaining what they represent (e.g., 'GitLab project ID'). This adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Merge a merge request.' It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_merge_request' or 'close_issue', which would enhance clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a merge request is ready for merging, or prerequisites like approvals or CI status.
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, and the description only indicates mutation ('Update'). It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with an args section, but includes a boilerplate line about ctx injection that adds little value. It is adequately structured but could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description does not cover return values despite an output schema being present. It lacks important context like file existence requirements, branch validity, and error scenarios, making it incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists parameters with minimal explanations (e.g., 'project_id: GitLab project ID'), which adds some value over the schema (0% coverage). However, it does not elaborate on formatting, constraints, or usage beyond the parameter names.
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') and the resource ('an existing file in repository'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_file, delete_file, and get_file_content.
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 the file must exist ('existing file') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_file. No guidance on prerequisites or context.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update project settings,' which implies mutation but lacks details on authentication, error handling, side effects, or constraints. The token parameter hints at auth but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence and a parameter list. The main action is front-loaded. However, the parameter list essentially mirrors the schema, which could be streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a mutation with an output schema, the description omits important context such as prerequisites (project must exist), permissions needed, and potential side effects. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of behavioral 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal added value for most parameters (e.g., repeating names from schema) but crucially adds allowed values for 'visibility' (private, internal, public) not present in the schema. This partial compensation prevents a lower 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 clearly states 'Update project settings,' specifying the verb 'Update' and the resource 'project settings.' It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project, delete_project, and archive_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like create_project or archive_project for alternative tasks.
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, and the description lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects (e.g., whether issue creation is immediate), or rate limits. The optional token parameter is mentioned but not explained in terms of necessity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a docstring format with an Args section. It front-loads the main purpose in one sentence. However, it could be more informative without adding excessive length.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks explanation of error handling, success indications, or any constraints. With 5 parameters and no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.
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?
Input schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief descriptions (e.g., 'project_id: GitLab project ID'), but these add little beyond the schema's titles. The optional 'description' and 'token' are noted but no additional 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 'Create a new issue in a GitLab project.' which is a specific verb (create) and resource (issue) within a GitLab project. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like close_issue and update_issue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as close_issue or update_issue. There are no prerequisites, context conditions, or usage examples.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Get detailed information,' offering no insight into behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or throttling. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with one line for purpose and an args list. It is efficient, though the args list could be integrated more cleanly.
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?
Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on what 'detailed information' entails and how to use the optional token, making it adequate but not 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 description adds meaning to parameters ('GitLab project ID' for project_id, 'optional' for token) beyond the schema names. However, the ctx parameter is unexplained, and with 0% schema coverage, it should do more.
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 'Get detailed information about a specific project,' providing a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_project or delete_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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, and the description only lists parameters without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, default ordering, or whether the operation is read-only. The action 'Get' implies no side effects, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two lines of purpose plus parameter list). It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the docstring format with 'Args:' is slightly verbose but acceptable.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema, return value documentation is not required. However, the description lacks information on edge cases (e.g., what happens if project_id is invalid) and does not mention any prerequisites or common pitfalls, making it sufficient but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning by briefly explaining parameters like 'project_id: GitLab project ID' and 'state: Milestone state'. However, explanations are minimal and do not cover all nuances (e.g., valid values for state are not listed).
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 'Get project milestones.' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_project_issues or get_project_branches by focusing solely on milestones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, idempotency, or side effects beyond creation. The token parameter is mentioned as optional, but no clarity on what happens if omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a clear structure with 'Args:' but includes the `ctx` parameter which is automatically injected, adding unnecessary detail. It could be more concise by omitting obvious parameters.
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 all parameters and provides an output schema (presumably for the project object), but lacks guidance on usage context. For a creation tool, it is minimally complete but not exceptional.
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 description adds meaning to all five parameters (name, description, visibility, token, ctx) beyond the input schema's titles and defaults. It explains the role of each parameter, compensating for the 0% schema description 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'GitLab project', making the action unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_project, delete_project, and fork_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fork_project or transfer_project. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.
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?
With no annotations provided and a minimal description, the tool fails to disclose behaviors like authentication requirements, pagination, or return value structure beyond the function name.
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 short, front-loads the purpose, and includes a structured Args list with no unnecessary text.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description lacks return value details despite an existing output schema, and provides no behavioral insights, making it adequate but not comprehensive.
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 Args section adds minimal value by stating that token is optional and ctx is auto-injected, but given 0% schema coverage, more detail would be needed to fully compensate.
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 'Get branches for a GitLab project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_branch or delete_branch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_repository_tags or get_commits, nor any prerequisites or context for its usage.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Revert a commit' without explaining side effects (e.g., creation of a new revert commit), error conditions, or required permissions. This is minimal for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a one-line summary followed by parameter details. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses a standard docstring format. The inclusion of 'automatically injected' for ctx is helpful, but the parameter list adds some verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks crucial context such as return value, conflict resolution behavior, permission requirements, and failure scenarios. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, more explanation is needed for an agent to use it safely.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'GitLab project ID', 'Commit SHA to revert', 'Target branch for revert', token optionality, and context auto-injection). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema names.
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 reverts a commit, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cherry_pick_commit or create_commit, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites (e.g., need for push permissions, conflict handling). The description only states the action without usage context.
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 provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions optional parameters but lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting existing directories), authentication requirements, or default behavior (HTTPS vs SSH). This is a mutating tool with insufficient 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?
Very concise: a single-line purpose followed by a clean Args list. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with an output schema, the description omits important context such as authentication requirements, error conditions (e.g., directory already exists), and success/ failure indicators. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 0%, so description compensates well. Each parameter is explained with type, optionality, and defaults (e.g., local_path defaults to project name, use_ssh defaults to False). Adds meaningful context 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?
Clearly states the action 'Clone a GitLab repository to local path' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling 'clone_group_repositories' by focusing on a single repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like clone_group_repositories. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., Git installation, network access) or context (e.g., private repos needing tokens).
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 bears full responsibility. It mentions default ref but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or authorization needs.
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, using a brief sentence followed by a bullet-style argument list. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or potential errors. Lacks information on prerequisites, permissions, or conflict behavior, making it incomplete for a create operation.
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 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'GitLab project ID', 'New branch name'), going beyond just names and types.
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 'Create a new branch,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_branch or get_project_branches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_tag, create_commit). Missing context on prerequisites or preferred scenarios.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Delete a file' without explaining side effects (e.g., irreversible commit, permissions needed, branch target), which is insufficient for a destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single purpose line and a structured 'Args:' block. Including ctx, which is automatically injected, adds minor redundancy but overall it is well-organized and 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?
Given the presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers parameter meanings but fails to describe behavioral context, return value expectations, or error scenarios, leaving some completeness gaps.
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 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations (e.g., 'project_id: GitLab project ID') add crucial meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it lacks constraints like expected formats or allowed values.
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 'Delete a file from repository,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_file, update_file, delete_branch, etc., which are present in the tool list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate usage.
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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, reversibility, permissions, or idempotency. Simply states 'Star a project' without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with the action in the first sentence. The arg list is clear. Could be slightly more concise by removing 'Args:' but overall efficient.
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 is simple, and an output schema exists (not shown), but the description lacks context about error conditions (e.g., project not found) or whether starring is idempotent. Adequate for a straightforward action.
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 0%, but the description explains each parameter (project_id as GitLab project ID, token as optional PAT, ctx as automatically injected). This adds meaning beyond the schema's field titles.
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 ('Star a project') with a verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unstar_project' and 'list_starred_projects'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to star versus unstar or list starred projects. No context about prerequisites or conditions.
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 implies mutation by mentioning 'create a commit' and the action parameter, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether changes are reversible. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but falls short of being thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise but the parameter list format is repetitive. The main purpose is front-loaded, but some lines could be streamlined.
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?
Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. However, the description lacks usage context compared to siblings, and does not fully detail the commit behavior (e.g., single file per commit). Overall adequate but not 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining each parameter, including optional token and auto-injected ctx. The action parameter options (create, update, delete) are clarified, though format details for file_path and file_content are not elaborated.
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 'Create a commit with file changes', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_file or update_file by explicitly targeting commit creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_file or update_file. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.
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 provided, and description fails to disclose key behaviors: what happens on fork (creates copy under user/namespace), authentication implications if token omitted, or side effects. Minimal detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and to the point, uses structured Args block. No extraneous text, though could be more efficient by omitting obvious ctx detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters and many siblings, the description is too sparse. Lacks info on return format, prerequisites (permissions, token necessity), or behavior if namespace omitted. Output schema exists but description adds little.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: project_id is GitLab ID, namespace target, token as PAT, ctx auto-injected. This compensates for lack of schema comments.
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 'Fork a project' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like clone_project, create_project, transfer_project.
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?
Mentions required project_id and optional namespace and token, but lacks guidance on when to fork vs alternatives like clone or create. No explicit when-not-to-use.
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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits, error handling). It only states 'get content' but omits details like token usage or response behavior. Basic action is clear but lacks depth.
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 extremely concise: a one-line summary followed by a parameter list. No redundant text, front-loaded purpose, efficient and scannable.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it doesn't mention that the tool returns file content. With 5 parameters and 2 required, the description covers main ones but lacks context on optional parameters like token effects.
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 no descriptions for parameters, but the description adds explanations for each, e.g., 'ref' with default, 'token' as optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema. Could be improved by clarifying token necessity or file_path format.
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 'Get content of a repository file', which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (content of a repository file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_file or update_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_repository_files (which lists files). No explicit when/when-not context is given.
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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination, authentication requirements, or read-only nature, but it only lists parameters without such context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The docstring format is clear and front-loaded, but mentioning 'ctx' as 'automatically injected' adds 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 covers parameters but lacks information on prerequisites, behavior for empty results, or pagination; output schema exists but is irrelevant for this score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., state: opened, closed, merged, all) beyond the input schema's minimal titles, fully compensating for the 0% 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 'Get merge requests for a GitLab project' which specifies the verb, resource, and context, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to filter by state versus using create_merge_request or other related tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but lacks details on pagination, error handling (e.g., invalid project_id), rate limiting, or authentication requirements beyond noting token is optional. The mention of 'ctx' as automatically injected is a technical detail but does not address behavioral traits.
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 extremely concise, using a docstring format with a single purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, return values are not required in the description. However, the description does not mention potential limits (e.g., number of pipelines returned, pagination) or common filters beyond status. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 0%, so the description compensates partially. It explains project_id as 'GitLab project ID', status with enumerated values, token as optional, and ctx as automatically injected. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions, but could provide more context (e.g., token format, where to obtain it).
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 'Get CI/CD pipelines for a GitLab project.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'CI/CD pipelines' are specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_pipeline_jobs' and 'trigger_pipeline'.
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 pipelines given a project_id and optional status filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_pipeline_jobs' for individual job details or 'trigger_pipeline' for creating runs. No exclusions are mentioned.
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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is limited to parameter descriptions.
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 extremely concise with one line of purpose followed by a structured Args list. No redundant information.
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?
While simple, the description does not specify the scope of groups listed (e.g., all accessible, user's groups). With an output schema present, explanation of return values is not required but the functional scope remains ambiguous.
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 0%, so the description adds significant value by explaining parameters: per_page (max 100), token (optional PAT), and ctx (injected). This compensates for the lack of 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 'List GitLab groups,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_group_projects' by focusing on groups themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not explain prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
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 provided, so description must fully disclose behaviors. It fails to mention side effects like directory creation, overwriting, error handling for invalid group IDs, or authentication fallback when token is omitted. The description is overly simplistic for a cloning 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?
Very concise: one sentence for purpose, then a succinct parameter list. No unnecessary words. Front-loads the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (so return values are handled), the tool has side effects (cloning to disk) that are not addressed. No mention of expected behavior for missing groups, permission issues, or large groups. Context signals show no annotations, increasing the burden on description.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds some value: explains that token is optional, includes default for base_path, and clarifies ctx is auto-injected. However, group_id explanation is minimal ('GitLab group ID') and adds little beyond the parameter name.
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 verb 'clone' and the resource 'all repositories from a GitLab group'. It distinguishes from sibling 'clone_repository' by specifying 'all', making the 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies when to use: for cloning a group's repositories. However, there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use, such as for single repositories (use clone_repository) or for non-GitLab groups.
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, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the pipeline execution is destructive, required permissions (token optional but unclear if always needed), or rate limits. The word 'Trigger' implies action but lacks detail.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It starts with the primary action and then lists parameters in a clear, structured format. Every sentence is meaningful.
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 that an output schema exists (though not shown) and the description covers all parameters, it is largely complete. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral disclosures slightly reduce completeness for an agent deciding whether to invoke 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning by explaining each parameter: project_id, ref (with default), token (optional), and ctx (auto-injected). This goes beyond the bare schema, though ctx could be described more clearly.
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 'Trigger a new pipeline', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pipelines which are read-only, so an agent can easily differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_pipelines for listing). It only lists arguments, leaving the agent without context on appropriate usage scenarios.
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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and parameter meanings, but fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior (beyond per_page), authentication requirements beyond token, rate limits, or any side effects. The optional token leaves ambiguity about default auth.
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 a clear purpose statement followed by a focused parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then enumerates parameters in a readable format. No redundancy or 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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, with many sibling tools (search_projects, list_user_projects, etc.), it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over others. The 'owned' parameter provides some scoping, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions (0% schema description coverage), so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so clearly: 'owned' with true/false semantics, per_page with max limit (added value beyond schema), token as optional, and ctx as auto-injected. This adds significant 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 GitLab projects' as a verb+resource combination. Among siblings, it distinguishes by being the most general listing tool, while others like search_projects, list_user_projects, list_group_projects, and list_starred_projects have more specific scopes.
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 explains the 'owned' parameter ('If True, only show owned projects. If False, show all accessible projects.') which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_projects, list_user_projects, or list_group_projects, nor does it provide any 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.
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 the basic action but omits side effects, authorization requirements (token is optional but may be needed), or state changes. The simplicity of the tool mitigates this, but more detail would be helpful.
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?
Extremely concise: a one-line description followed by clear argument documentation. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value.
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 unstar action, the description is complete enough. The output schema exists but is not detailed here, which is acceptable. It covers the key input parameters and basic action, though it lacks any mention of prerequisites or return value.
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 0%, so description provides the only semantics. It explains project_id as 'GitLab project ID', token as 'GitLab Personal Access Token (optional)', and notes ctx is 'automatically injected'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw 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 states 'Unstar a project' which is a clear verb+resource pair. It directly contrasts with the sibling 'star_project', 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'star_project' or other project actions. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
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 mentions authentication via token and automatic ctx injection, but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, or specify atomicity 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a clear docstring format with a brief line followed by an Args section. It is structured but slightly verbose; could be more concise.
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 7 parameters and existence of output schema, the description is fairly complete, covering each parameter. It does not explain return values, but the output schema covers that.
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 0%, so the description compensates well by listing all parameters with explanations. However, it could be more precise about valid values for state_event.
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 'Update an issue', which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'close_issue' (which only closes) and 'create_issue'.
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 lists optional parameters like state_event for state changes, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like close_issue or reopen via state_event.
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:

[![gitlab-clone-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skmprb/gitlab-clone-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skmprb/gitlab-clone-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gitlab-clone-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skmprb/gitlab-clone-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/skmprb/gitlab-clone-mcp-server)

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/skmprb/gitlab-clone-mcp-server'

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