Server has 10 tools with complete schemas and descriptions, but quality is uneven. All tools have descriptions (10-150 chars, mostly adequate) and input schemas with typed parameters. However, descriptions lack LLM-optimized guidance on WHEN to use each tool vs. alternatives. Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure. Error handling is minimal; no recovery guidance. Security concern: no tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) despite 6 WRITE tools. Naming is clear and verb-first, but some tools conflate multiple concerns (review_code does review + comment + approve in one call).

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., search_repositories returns {projects: [{id, name, path, description}], total_count, page, per_page}. Include all fields downstream tools need (e.g., merge_request_iid for review_code).
• Add tool annotations: mark all WRITE tools with destructiveHint=true, READ tools with readOnlyHint=true, and idempotent operations with idempotentHint=true.
• Split review_code into three tools: review_merge_request (returns score + comments), add_merge_request_comment (posts comment), approve_merge_request (approves). Agents can then compose them.
• Enhance descriptions with WHEN-to-use guidance. E.g., 'Create a new GitLab project. Use this to initialize a new repo; use fork_repository to copy an existing project. Requires project name and visibility level.'
• Add error recovery hints in tool descriptions. E.g., push_files: 'Cannot push to main branch. Create a branch first with create_branch, then push to that branch.'

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry