gitlab mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a merge request, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a merge request ID). This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more context than provided.

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%, meaning all 13 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, this results in a baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('new merge request in a GitLab project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_branch' beyond the resource name, which would require mentioning what distinguishes a merge request from other GitLab entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing source/target branches), when to use 'update_merge_request' instead, or how it relates to tools like 'merge_merge_request'. This leaves 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.