Record an audit for a hardware asset using its asset tag, found location ID, and optional note to keep Snipe-IT inventory accurate.
Record an audit on an asset
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | Audit note | |
| asset_tag | Yes | Asset tag | |
| location_id | No | Location ID where asset was found |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Record an audit' but does not explain side effects, whether it creates a new audit record, modifies an asset, or requires any special permissions. This is a meaningful gap for a write-like 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though arguably under-specified for an agent needing behavioral context.
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?
Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It fails to indicate when an audit is appropriate, what happens after recording, or how this differs from other asset mutations. The tool's low parameter count reduces complexity, but the description still leaves critical operational context unstated.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load.
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 states a specific action ('Record') on a specific resource ('an asset'), and the term 'audit' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like checkin, checkout, create, and update. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a reasonable idea of the operation's intent.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snipeit_hardware_update, checkin, or checkout. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.