Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

List Snippets Tool

list_snippets_tool
Read-only

Retrieve a paginated list of code snippets for a specified GitLab project. Use project ID or path with optional page and per-page parameters.

Instructions

List snippets for a GitLab project.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_snippets_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
per_pageNoResults per page, max 100 (default: 20)
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the project-scoping behavior and does not disclose further traits such as pagination behavior or result characteristics, but it remains consistent with the read-only annotation.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted text. The core action and scope are front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 simple listing tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description provides enough to identify the operation. It is somewhat sparse on usage context, but the structured fields carry the missing parameter and return-value detail.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters are documented in the schema, including project_id, page, and per_page. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List snippets" scoped to "a GitLab project." It is clear enough to distinguish from write siblings such as create_snippet_tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related read operations because no such sibling is named.

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?

The description implies that the tool is used when snippets for a project are needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. It is a bare statement of function rather than routing guidance.

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