gitlab_get_snippetRetrieve a specific GitLab snippet by ID to access its title, content, file name, and visibility settings for review or reuse.
Get a specific snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| file_name | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| snippet_id | No | ||
| visibility | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v27.3.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context such as authentication needs, scoping rules, or what is returned beyond a generic 'get' operation.
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 short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with seven parameters and no schema documentation, it is far too thin.
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 seven undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. The description leaves the agent without the information needed to identify a snippet or understand the request shape.
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 0%, with seven parameters including snippet_id, project_id, title, content, visibility, data, and file_name. The description says nothing about which identifiers are needed or what the other parameters mean, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title: 'Get a specific snippet.' It does not clarify what a snippet is in GitLab, whether it is project-scoped or personal, or how it differs from sibling tools like gitlab_get_snippets.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus gitlab_get_snippets (listing) or other snippet-related tools. It also gives no prerequisites or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.