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 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large result sets. The description is minimal and lacks operational 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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action and target resource efficiently.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'release' means in this context, what information is returned, how results are structured, or provide any operational guidance. The minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema comprehensively documents all 6 parameters including their types, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate coverage when 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 action ('List all releases') and the target resource ('for a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar list operations among its many siblings (like list_issues, list_merge_requests, list_labels), which would require a 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. With many sibling tools available (including get_release for single releases and create_release for creation), there's no indication of when this list operation is appropriate versus other release-related tools or general listing tools.

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