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

@snippkit/mcp-server

by Yaseen549
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

snippkit_search_snippets

Search your personal and bookmarked code snippets by title, language, or keyword to quickly find reusable code for your current task.

Instructions

Search your personal and bookmarked code snippets library in SnippKit by title, language, or keyword.

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_snippets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoSearch keywords or language, e.g. 'auth', 'jwt', 'python', 'react'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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, yet it only discloses the search corpus ('personal and bookmarked'). It says nothing about result limits, ordering, whether an empty query returns everything, or what a match looks like, and the optional query makes the no-query case a real ambiguity.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and corpus front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it could be trimmed without losing scope 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but the optional query and undisclosed result behavior leave the agent guessing about the empty-query case and return shape.

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% for the single query parameter, so the schema already documents the field and gives examples. The description adds only that matching spans title, language, and keyword, which is mild added meaning beyond the schema's example strings.

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 ('Search') with a specific resource ('personal and bookmarked code snippets library in SnippKit') and names the match fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like snippkit_search_commands or snippkit_search_skills, leaving the agent to infer the split from the resource noun alone.

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 the tool for finding snippets by title, language, or keyword. There is no statement of when to prefer it over snippkit_get_snippet (direct lookup) or the sibling search tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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