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 'defaults to open issues' which adds some behavioral context, but fails to describe important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when 'project_id' is omitted. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and default behavior. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and default behavior but lacks guidance on when to use versus alternatives, detailed behavioral context, and output expectations. The high schema coverage helps compensate, but for a tool with this many parameters and no annotations, more contextual information would be beneficial.

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 documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying user assignment filtering and default state behavior, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 issues assigned to the authenticated user' with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'issues'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_issues' by specifying 'assigned to the authenticated user', though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The description is not tautological and provides meaningful context beyond the tool name.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'defaults to open issues' but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_issues' or other filtering tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is insufficient for an agent to make informed decisions about tool selection.

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