Snipe-IT MCP Server

status_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count assets per status label to generate summary displays and reports from Snipe-IT inventory data.

Instructions

Get asset counts grouped by status label.

Returns a summary of how many assets are in each status, useful for dashboard displays and reporting.

Returns: dict: Asset counts by status label

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to disclose safety. It adds a useful behavioral detail by specifying the return type as a dict, which goes beyond the annotations. No auth or rate limit info is needed given the tool's simple read-only nature.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds context, and the 'Returns:' line repeats a bit of what the output schema likely provides, but it isn't bloated. It earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns and why it's useful, leaving no important gaps.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters. It adds no parameter info, but none is required.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Get asset counts grouped by status label.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_status_labels or asset_labels, which focus on managing labels rather than summarizing counts.

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?

It provides clear usage context ('useful for dashboard displays and reporting') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. This is sufficient for a simple read-only summary tool, but it lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' or 'when not to use' clause.

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