gitlab-api

Get snippets

gitlab_get_snippets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve GitLab snippets, optionally filtered by project ID, to locate and review relevant code or text snippets.

Instructions

Get list of snippets. Can filter by project_id.

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_get_snippets"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the project_id filter note, but leaves a major behavioral question unaddressed: six of the seven params (data, title, content, file_name, snippet_id, visibility) look like snippet attributes rather than list filters, and the description never clarifies whether they filter results or are ignored.

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?

Two short sentences, the list scope front-loaded ahead of the filter note, with no filler. Its brevity is only a problem insofar as it under-specifies rather than pad.

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?

For a tool with 7 undocumented params, no output schema, and no pagination or scope information, two sentences are not enough. An agent cannot tell which parameters actually affect the result set, nor how the plural tool relates to its singular sibling.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only project_id as a filter and says nothing about whether title/content/file_name/visibility narrow the list or what snippet_id and data would even mean on a list call, leaving most parameters opaque.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a verb and resource ("Get list of snippets"), which is enough to know it lists rather than fetches one. But it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gitlab_get_snippet (singular), nor from gitlab_create_snippet/gitlab_update_snippet, so an agent must infer the plural-vs-singular split from the name alone.

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?

"Can filter by project_id" hints at one usage path but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance. There is no mention of when to prefer gitlab_get_snippet for a single snippet, or whether snippets can also be listed globally vs per-project.

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

Deploy Server