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 only mentions the parameter requirement without detailing other behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., fields returned). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond basic input 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that states the purpose and key constraint. There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of retrieving merge request details, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' entail, potential side effects, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context to fully understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that 'Either mergeRequestIid or branchName must be provided,' which hints at parameter dependencies but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a merge request.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('merge request'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_diffs' or 'list_merge_requests,' which also retrieve merge request information but with different scopes or details.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Either mergeRequestIid or branchName must be provided,' which helps in selecting parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_merge_requests' for multiple items or 'get_merge_request_diffs' for diff details, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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