Snipe-IT MCP Server

ldap_operations

Trigger LDAP user sync or test connection settings directly from Snipe-IT MCP, eliminating the need for CLI commands or web UI.

Instructions

Manage LDAP synchronization.

Operations:

sync: Trigger LDAP user synchronization
test: Test LDAP connection settings

Note: LDAP must be configured in Snipe-IT settings before use. Previously required CLI (php artisan snipeit:ldap-sync) or web UI.

Returns: dict: Sync results or connection test status

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "ldap_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	The LDAP action to perform

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. Description adds the prerequisite configuration note but does not disclose specific side effects of sync (e.g., user creation/updates) beyond action names.

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?

Well-structured with a leading summary, bulleted operations, and a return note. The 'Previously required CLI' sentence is slightly extra but adds helpful historical context; overall concise.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers prerequisites, operations, and return type. Given an output schema exists, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with a single parameter having an enum and its own description. Description adds no further parameter detail beyond repeating the actions, which are already self-explanatory.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool manages LDAP synchronization and enumerates the two operations (sync and test), making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools focused on assets, users, etc.

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?

Provides clear context: LDAP must be configured before use, and mentions the tool replaces the previous CLI/web UI flow. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.

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