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 'gets' and 'lists,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical clarification adds necessary specificity without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's function.

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving completeness gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying tree structure listing. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('repository tree for a GitLab project'), with the specific function 'list files and directories' in parentheses. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_file_contents' or 'list_projects' by focusing on the repository tree structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 choose this over 'get_file_contents' for individual files or 'list_projects' for project metadata, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing project access. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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