gitlab mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers almost none. It doesn't indicate that this is a mutation operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. The only behavioral hint is the update action itself, which is insufficient for a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema.

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 communicates the essential constraint without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool where most documentation is handled by the detailed input schema, making it front-loaded and zero-waste.

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 mutation tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what fields are modifiable, error conditions, or behavioral expectations. While the schema covers parameter details, the description fails to provide the necessary contextual understanding for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 13 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying that either mergeRequestIid or branchName (likely meaning source_branch) is required for identification, but this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 ('Update') and resource ('merge request'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'create_merge_request' by focusing on updates rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated beyond the identification requirement.

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 guidance by stating 'Either mergeRequestIid or branchName must be provided' (though branchName doesn't match the actual parameter 'source_branch'), but offers no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' or 'merge_merge_request'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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