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. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 of updating a discussion note (a mutation operation with 6 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error handling, nor does it hint at the response structure. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured safety hints, more contextual information is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 6 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'discussion_id' and 'note_id'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides no extra parameter context.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a discussion note on a merge request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_merge_request_discussion_note' and 'delete_merge_request_discussion_note' by specifying the update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'update_merge_request_note' or 'update_issue_note', which slightly reduces specificity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'update_merge_request_note' or 'update_issue_note'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate based solely on the name and parameters.

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