describeLists accepted create/update fields and list filters for a Snipe-IT resource, plus hardware custom fields, so you can build valid API requests.
Fields accepted by create/update and the list filters for a resource. For hardware also lists the instance's custom fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope: it returns accepted create/update fields and list filters, with special behavior for hardware custom fields, but does not describe return shape, permissions, or limits.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the hardware exception is stated without wasted text.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple read-only introspection tool, but with no output schema it should say more about what is returned, such as field names, types, or filter metadata. It also leaves the resource enum semantics largely implicit.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It mentions 'a resource' and hardware-specific behavior, but does not explain the resource parameter or the 19 enum values beyond what the schema already lists.
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?
The description states a specific capability: returning fields accepted by create/update plus list filters for a resource, and notes hardware-specific custom fields. It distinguishes itself reasonably from CRUD siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with list/get/lookup.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer it should call describe to learn valid fields before create/update or to discover list filters. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives like get or list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.