gitlab-api

Create snippet

gitlab_create_snippet

Create project or personal snippets in GitLab to store and share code or text fragments with configurable visibility.

Instructions

Create a project snippet or personal snippet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_create_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`title`	No
`content`	No
`file_name`	No
`project_id`	No
`snippet_id`	No
`visibility`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-idempotent write operation with open-world behavior. The description merely restates the create action and mentions the two snippet scopes, but adds no detail about required permissions, what happens on failure, or how project vs personal snippets are selected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. Its brevity is not wordiness, though the extreme terseness leaves the definition under-specified for a seven-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With seven parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description carries a heavy burden but supplies almost none of the needed detail. It identifies the two snippet scopes but does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly or what the response will contain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters. It never mentions title, content, file_name, visibility, project_id, snippet_id, or data, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the vague 'project snippet or personal snippet' phrase.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('snippet') and distinguishes the two possible scopes: project snippet or personal snippet. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar create siblings, but the purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_create_wiki_page or the broader api_request. It also does not explain when to create a project snippet versus a personal snippet.

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

Deploy Server