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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a release and clarifies it does not delete the tag, which is useful. However, it lacks critical details such as permission requirements, whether the deletion is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a release') and includes a crucial clarification ('does not delete the associated tag') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral note about the tag, but misses important context like authentication needs, error handling, or return values. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 both parameters (project_id and tag_name) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 specific action ('Delete a release') and resource ('from a GitLab project'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it 'does not delete the associated tag'. This differentiates it from other deletion tools like delete_issue or delete_label, which handle different resources.

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 implies usage context by specifying it deletes a release (not the tag), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_issue or update_release. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools are mentioned, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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