Retrieve a specific asset model's details from Snipe-IT by providing its ID. Get model name, manufacturer, and other attributes for inventory management.
Get an asset model by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only retrieval rather than a mutation, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, permissions, or other side effects.
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 six words with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, and every word adds meaning.
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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides the essential call context: retrieve one asset model by ID. It is terse but adequate, and nothing critical is missing for a tool this simple.
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?
The input schema has no descriptions and 0% coverage, so the description partially compensates by clarifying that the 'id' parameter is the asset model's ID. It does not add further detail about the value's source or expected format beyond the schema's number type.
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 clear action ('Get'), a specific resource ('asset model'), and the retrieval criterion ('by ID'), making it distinct from snipeit_models_list which would return multiple models. An agent can immediately tell this is a singular lookup tool.
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?
The 'by ID' phrasing implies the tool should be used when the caller already knows a specific model ID. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the list alternative that should be used for discovery.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.