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. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' in schema but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'accessible' entails (e.g., based on permissions). For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 ('List projects accessible by the current user'). It has zero wasted words and is appropriately sized for a list tool, though it could benefit from more context given the complexity.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on usage, behavioral details (e.g., pagination, permissions), and doesn't explain return values or error cases. For a list tool with many filtering options, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.

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 fully documents all 14 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a user-scoped list. Baseline is 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like default behaviors or parameter interactions.

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 ('List') and resource ('projects'), specifying that it returns projects 'accessible by the current user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_project' (singular) or 'list_group_projects' (group-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all list-like siblings (e.g., 'list_commits', 'list_issues'), though the resource specificity is adequate.

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 sibling tools like 'list_group_projects' for group-specific listings or 'get_project' for single-project details, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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