@snippkit/mcp-server

snippkit_get_snippet

Retrieve decrypted source code for a specific SnippKit snippet by ID or slug, so agents can inspect and reuse verified code directly in context.

Instructions

Retrieve the decrypted source code of a specific code snippet from 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_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Snippet UUID or slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait — the returned content is decrypted source — which is real value, but it says nothing about permissions required to decrypt, behavior when the ID is not found, or response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action, the payload, the source system, and the key are all stated before any trailing clause.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers what comes back (source code) and how to address it. Only the failure case (invalid or unknown ID) and any access prerequisites are left unstated.

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 'Snippet UUID or slug'. The description restates the same 'ID or slug' duality without adding format examples or validation rules, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema baseline.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a precise resource ('the decrypted source code of a specific code snippet') and states the lookup key ('by ID or slug'). It is clearly distinguishable from search_snippets or save_snippet, though it never names a sibling to sharpen that boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching one known snippet rather than searching. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to snippkit_search_snippets for the discovery case where the ID is unknown.

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

Deploy Server