gitlab mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify important behavioral aspects like whether it returns partial matches, what happens with invalid usernames, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of returned user details. The description is too minimal for a tool that likely interacts with user data.

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 - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient language. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential 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?

For a user lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'user details' includes, how results are structured, whether it returns partial information for invalid usernames, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format.

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 fully documents the 'usernames' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'by usernames' but provides no extra context about format, constraints, or examples. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('GitLab user details') with a specific mechanism ('by usernames'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'list_project_members' that might also retrieve user-related information, preventing a perfect score.

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. There are many sibling tools that could potentially retrieve user information (e.g., 'list_project_members', 'get_namespace'), but the description offers no comparison or context about when this specific username-based lookup is appropriate.

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