Retrieves paginated code snippets from a GitLab project, showing each snippet's visibility and author details. Use it to review snippet metadata without cloning the repository.
List code snippets in a GitLab project with visibility and author details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| per_page | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Project numeric ID (e.g. 31) or namespace path (e.g. 'group/project-name'). URL-encoding is handled automatically. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints at the returned fields ('visibility and author details'). It says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page parameters, permissions required, or the read-only nature of the operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single focused sentence with the operation and scope front-loaded; there is no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly why other dimensions are thin.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits pagination semantics, permission requirements, and result fields it later alludes to. An agent can identify the tool but lacks what it needs to call it well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% – project_id is documented in the schema while page and per_page carry no descriptions. The description mentions the project implicitly but adds no meaning about pagination or accepted ID formats, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a clear verb+resource ('List code snippets') scoped to a GitLab project, which separates it from get_snippet, create_snippet, and update_snippet. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating what makes this the list variant, so it lands just below the top.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit routing to alternatives like get_snippet for a single snippet or create_snippet. The list-vs-get distinction is only implied by the verb and must be inferred by the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.