snipeit_audit_hardwareMark a Snipe-IT hardware asset as audited, optionally assigning an audit location, note, and next audit date to record its audit status.
POST /hardware/audit: marks an asset as audited at a location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. | |
| asset_tag | Yes | ||
| location_id | No | ||
| next_audit_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the effect is marking an asset as audited at a location, with no mention of whether prior audit dates are overwritten, what next_audit_date does, or what is returned.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and action, with no wasted words. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than merely concise.
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?
This is a destructive write with five parameters, 20% schema description coverage and no output schema, yet the description covers only the high-level effect. It omits the confirm-write requirement, the meaning of the optional fields, and the result of the call, leaving the agent under-equipped.
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 only 20% (only 'confirm' is documented), and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It never explains note, location_id, or next_audit_date, so four of five parameters are undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('marks an asset as audited') plus the endpoint and location scoping, which clearly separates it from list_audit_due/list_audit_overdue and the generic update tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus snipeit_update_hardware, snipeit_gen_hardwareaudit, or snipeit_raw_request, and no mention of prerequisites such as the SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES flag or what conditions warrant an audit. The agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.