Skip to main content
Glama
jameshgordy

Snipe-IT MCP Server

by jameshgordy

manage_assets

Destructive

Create, retrieve, list, update, and delete Snipe-IT assets with filtering, search, and custom field support for complete asset inventory management.

Instructions

Manage Snipe-IT assets with CRUD operations.

This tool handles all basic asset operations:

  • create: Create a new asset (requires asset_data with at least status_id and model_id)

  • get: Retrieve a single asset by ID, asset_tag, or serial number (uses dedicated bytag/byserial endpoints for reliable barcode scanning workflows)

  • list: List assets with optional pagination, filtering by status/model/company/location/category/manufacturer/assigned_to

  • update: Update an existing asset (requires asset_id and asset_data/extra_fields)

  • delete: Delete an asset (requires asset_id)

Use extra_fields for fields not in AssetData: asset_eol_date, custom fields (snipeit*), etc. For both create and update, extra_fields are validated against the model's fieldset before sending. Invalid field names will be rejected with a list of available fields.

Note: list action returns full asset objects. With high limits this can produce large responses. Use pagination (limit/offset) to control response size.

Sortable fields for list: id, name, asset_tag, serial, model, model_number, last_checkout, category, manufacturer, notes, expected_checkin, order_number, companyName, location, image, status_label, assigned_to, created_at, purchase_date, purchase_cost

Returns: dict: Result of the operation including success status and data

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoField to sort by (for list action). Valid fields: id, name, asset_tag, serial, model, model_number, last_checkout, category, manufacturer, notes, expected_checkin, order_number, companyName, location, image, status_label, assigned_to, created_at, purchase_date, purchase_cost
limitNoNumber of results to return per page (for list action). Default 20 because each asset payload is large (~5KB with custom fields).
orderNoSort order (for list action)
actionYesThe action to perform on assets
offsetNoNumber of results to skip (for list action)
searchNoSearch query (for list action)
serialNoSerial number (alternative to asset_id for get)
asset_idNoAsset ID (required for get, update, delete)
model_idNoFilter by model ID (for list action)
asset_tagNoAsset tag (alternative to asset_id for get)
status_idNoFilter by status label ID (for list action)
asset_dataNoAsset data for standard fields (required for create, optional for update)
company_idNoFilter by company ID (for list action)
assigned_toNoFilter by assigned user/asset/location ID (for list action)
category_idNoFilter by category ID (for list action)
location_idNoFilter by location ID (for list action)
extra_fieldsNoAdditional fields not in AssetData: asset_eol_date, custom fields (_snipeit_*), etc. For update, fields are validated against the asset's model fieldset.
manufacturer_idNoFilter by manufacturer ID (for list action)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses important behaviors: warning about large list responses, extra_fields validation with rejection of invalid names, and the use of dedicated endpoints for get. This adds substantial context about the tool's behavior, though some details like return format are left to the output schema.

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 description is well-structured with bullets and notes, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat lengthy due to listing all sortable fields (duplicated in schema) and detailed action requirements, but every section contributes value. The overall organization is effective for a complex CRUD tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 params, 5 actions) and the presence of an output schema and full schema coverage, the description provides complete operational guidance. It covers required inputs per action, validation behaviors, response size considerations, and sortable fields. Slightly more detail on return value specifics could improve it, but it is largely sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description enriches parameter understanding by mapping parameters to actions, e.g., 'asset_id required for get, update, delete' and 'extra_fields are validated against the model's fieldset.' It also clarifies that asset_data needs status_id and model_id for create, which is not explicitly in the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage Snipe-IT assets with CRUD operations.' It then enumerates each operation (create, get, list, update, delete) with specific actions, making it distinct from sibling tools like asset_files or asset_maintenance. The scope is well-defined as 'all basic asset operations.'

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use each action, such as 'create requires asset_data with at least status_id and model_id' and 'get uses dedicated endpoints for barcode scanning.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling tool list implies specialized tools exist for other asset operations.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jameshgordy/snipeit-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server