read_snippetRetrieve a live snippet by ID or slug to access all files, paths, code, and source metadata for coding agents.
Read one of your live snippets by its ID or slug, including all files, paths, code and source metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real signal: the word 'live' implies trashed or deleted snippets (see trash_snippet) will not resolve, and it enumerates what comes back (files, paths, code, source metadata). It does not cover failure behavior for unknown or trashed IDs.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return contents appended as a useful clause. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description responsibly summarizes the return payload, and it clearly frames the tool as a single-item read. The main residual gap is not stating what happens when the ID is invalid or the snippet is trashed.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is named only 'id' with a character pattern, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful semantics by stating that a slug is also accepted, which the schema does not reveal, though it gives no format or precedence guidance when both forms could apply.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Read one of your live snippets') and scopes it to a single item fetched by 'ID or slug', which implicitly separates it from search_snippets and fetch_collection. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it lands just below the top mark.
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 'by its ID or slug' phrasing implies you should already have an identifier, which steers agents away from this tool for discovery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to search_snippets for resolving an unknown identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.