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 is for 'Get' (implying a read operation), but doesn't clarify if it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Get a specific note for a merge request.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly stating the tool's 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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, read operation) and context (no annotations, no output schema, 100% schema coverage), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. For a read tool, this is passable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters (project_id, merge_request_iid, note_id) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a specific note for a merge request.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('note'), and scope ('specific note for a merge request'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_notes' (which likely lists multiple notes) or 'get_draft_note' (which might handle draft notes), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over 'get_merge_request_notes' (for multiple notes) or 'get_draft_note' (for draft notes), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a project ID, merge request IID, and note ID. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicit.

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