Creates a custom asset for devices without the Gorelo agent, such as printers or firewalls, by specifying client, location, and hardware type.
Creates a custom asset, meaning a device without the Gorelo agent, such as a printer or firewall. Use gorelo_list_custom_asset_hardware_types for valid hardware types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body for creating a custom asset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain semantics of a custom asset and the hardware-type lookup dependency, but says nothing about what is returned (no output schema exists) or about failure conditions such as an inactive client or location.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core definition front-loaded and the prerequisite lookup placed second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 mutation tool with a single nested body object fully described in the schema, the description covers purpose, the domain definition, and the one external dependency. With no output schema, a note on what the call returns (e.g., the created asset identifier) would close the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so every body field (Name, ClientId, ContactId, LocationId, HardwareTypeId, warranty date, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-relevant contribution is the pointer to the hardware-types listing tool; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Creates a custom asset') and then defines the term, disambiguating it from ordinary assets: 'a device without the Gorelo agent, such as a printer or firewall.' The concrete examples make it clear how this differs from sibling asset tools like gorelo_list_assets or gorelo_get_custom_asset.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to gorelo_list_custom_asset_hardware_types to obtain a valid HardwareTypeId, which is real prerequisite guidance. It does not, however, say when NOT to use this (e.g., when the device can run the agent) or contrast with gorelo_update_custom_asset for edits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.