gitlab mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions. Given the complexity of a deletion operation and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, such as relationships between 'project_id', 'merge_request_iid', and 'draft_note_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a draft note'), which clarifies the tool's basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_merge_request_note' or 'delete_issue_note', leaving ambiguity about the exact scope of 'draft note' in this context.

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. With siblings like 'delete_merge_request_note' and 'delete_issue_note', the description doesn't clarify if this is for draft notes specifically in merge requests (as suggested by the 'merge_request_iid' parameter) or other contexts, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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