List and filter asset models in Snipe-IT by category, manufacturer, or search terms to quickly identify hardware types.
List asset models
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| category_id | No | ||
| manufacturer_id | No |
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. 'List' hints at a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose whether the result is paginated, what default ordering/limit applies, or whether search/category_id/manufacturer_id are filters vs exact matches. This leaves key runtime behavior unspecified.
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 minimal and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently sized. A three-word description cannot carry the behavioral and parameter context needed for a seven-parameter API, so brevity becomes a gap.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is materially incomplete: it does not state what fields are returned, how pagination works, or how filters combine. An agent would have to guess or probe the API to use this tool correctly.
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 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning; it repeats only the 'asset models' resource. With seven parameters and no schema documentation, the agent receives no help on what sort, limit, offset, search, category_id, or manufacturer_id do.
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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('asset models'), clearly identifying the operation as an enumeration of model records. It is distinguishable from the sibling snipeit_models_get ('get' singular), but it does not articulate any scope or exclusions, so it is not a 5.
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 description gives no context for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as snipeit_models_get, snipeit_hardware_list, or snipeit_categories_list. There is no mention of typical use cases, filtering, or pagination strategy, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.