homebox-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_item

Create an inventory item in Homebox and enrich it in one call with location, tags, custom fields, purchase details, serial number, quantity, and warranty data.

Instructions

Create an inventory item and enrich it in one call.

location is where the item goes, resolved as in move_item: a location name or /-separated path (must exist; use list_locations), or a container item, e.g. 'Camera Bag', 'Office/Camera Bag' or its assetId ('000-012'). A location wins over an item with the same name. tags are tag names (must already exist; use list_tags). fields maps custom-field name -> value; each value's JSON type picks the field type (string -> text, number -> number [integer-coerced], true/false -> boolean). Returns the new assetId and id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`tags`	No
`model`	No
`notes`	No
`fields`	No
`serial`	No
`location`	No
`quantity`	No
`manufacturer`	No
`purchase_date`	No
`purchase_from`	No
`purchase_price`	No
`warranty_expires`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does much of it: it discloses the name-collision resolution rule ('a location wins over an item with the same name'), that custom-field value types are coerced by JSON type, and the return shape (assetId and id). It omits failure modes (duplicate item name, nonexistent container), permissions, and rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The one-line summary is front-loaded and the remaining sentences are dense with parameter rules rather than filler. Slight redundancy in restating location resolution examples three ways.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It explains return values and the tricky nested parameters, which is good for a tool with no output schema. However, for a 13-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage, the unexplained quantity/date/price/warranty fields and the absence of any error or idempotency behavior leave meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate; it fully specifies the three hardest ones (location, tags, fields) with syntax and coercion rules. But nine parameters — model, notes, serial, quantity, purchase_date, purchase_from, purchase_price, warranty_expires, manufacturer — get no mention, and date string formats are left ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an inventory item') plus the scope qualifier 'and enrich it in one call,' which tells the agent this is not a bare record creation but an attribute-bearing one. It never names a sibling (import_csv, duplicate_item) to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete preconditions and routes the agent to the right helper tool: 'must exist; use list_locations' and 'must already exist; use list_tags,' and points at move_item for path-resolution semantics. It does not say when to prefer create_item over import_csv or duplicate_item, so no exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.