@snippkit/mcp-server

snippkit_get_command

Retrieve shell commands or scripts from a SnippKit runbook by UUID or slug, so agents can execute the correct runbook steps without manual lookup.

Instructions

Retrieve the shell commands/scripts from a runbook in SnippKit by ID or slug.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Command runbook UUID or slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but that is never stated. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID/slug, authentication needs, or return format for what is described as multiple shell commands/scripts.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant clauses. Every element (resource, scope, identifier type) carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, and no output schema exists so return-value detail is optional. Still, it never indicates whether the response is one command or many, nor how a missing runbook is surfaced, leaving modest gaps for an agent planning a call.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Command runbook UUID or slug'. The description's 'by ID or slug' restates that without adding format examples, resolution precedence when both are ambiguous, or error semantics — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a clearly delimited resource ('shell commands/scripts from a runbook in SnippKit'), which separates it from snippet and skill retrieval siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting behavior, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'by ID or slug' implies the tool is for direct lookup when an identifier is already known, indirectly contrasting with the search_* siblings. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given, so the agent must infer the lookup-vs-search split.

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

Deploy Server