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 mentions 'pagination support' and the requirement for mergeRequestIid or branchName, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., diff format, response structure). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent.

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 directly states the purpose and key usage requirement. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an AI agent 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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a critical constraint, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format, error cases, or pagination mechanics. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results, making it only minimally adequate.

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 all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds value by clarifying that 'Either mergeRequestIid or branchName must be provided', which isn't explicitly stated in the schema (as required parameters are 0). However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond this constraint, so it 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: 'List merge request diffs with pagination support'. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('merge request diffs'), and a key feature ('pagination support'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merge_request_diffs' or 'get_branch_diffs', which appears to be a similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 clear context for usage by stating 'Either mergeRequestIid or branchName must be provided', which is a critical prerequisite. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_merge_request_diffs' or 'get_branch_diffs', nor does it mention exclusions or other conditions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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