gitlab mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether drafts are private vs. visible, or what happens when published (though 'resolve_discussion' parameter hints at publishing). The description lacks crucial context about the tool's effects and constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complex input schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies the tool's purpose but doesn't address the sophisticated positioning requirements for diff comments or explain what a 'draft note' entails in GitLab's workflow. For a tool with such parameter complexity, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and target resource ('draft note for a merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'create_merge_request_note' or 'create_note', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_merge_request_note', 'create_note', and 'create_merge_request_discussion_note' available, there's no indication of when a draft note is preferred over a regular note or discussion note, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.

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