Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@snippkit/mcp-server

@snippkit/mcp-server

by Yaseen549
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

snippkit_search_commands

Search verified shell commands, deployment scripts, and terminal runbooks in your SnippKit library to find the right command for your task.

Instructions

Search verified shell commands, deployment scripts, and terminal runbooks stored in your SnippKit library.

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": "snippkit_search_commands"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSearch keywords, e.g. 'docker', 'git', 'kubectl', 'npm'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention that this is a non-mutating lookup, no pagination or result-limit behavior, no ranking semantics, and no indication of what happens when the optional query is omitted. Only the word 'verified' hints at a curation/trust property.

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 naming the action and the resource types, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate on scope but leaves material gaps: empty-query behavior, result volume, and how results differ from snippkit_get_command. An agent can call it, but not confidently predict the response.

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 query parameter is documented with keyword examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the search targets the SnippKit library; it does not say whether keywords match command names, descriptions, tags, or bodies, nor how multiple keywords combine.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and a specific resource class (verified shell commands, deployment scripts, terminal runbooks) in a SnippKit library. The content-type scoping implicitly separates it from search_skills and search_snippets siblings, though it never names them.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus snippkit_get_command (direct retrieval) or the other search_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the word 'search'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools