Skip to main content
Glama
the-real-snipeit-mcp

the-real-snipeit-mcp

GET /categories

snipeit_gen_categories_1
Read-onlyIdempotent

List and filter Snipe-IT categories by name, type, search term, or category ID, with sorting and pagination controls for retrieving results.

Instructions

GET /categories: List categories. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categories-1.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoCategory name
sortNo
limitNoNumber of results to return
orderNoSort order (asc or desc)
offsetNoOffset number (useful in pagination)
searchNoSearch string
category_idNoID number of the category you'd like to filter by
category_typeNoType of category
checkin_emailNo
use_default_eulaNo
require_acceptanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further — no pagination behavior, no auth requirements, no note on default result limits — beyond noting it was auto-generated from the Snipe-IT OpenAPI spec.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categories-1') is metadata that consumes space without informing the caller.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, 11 optional filter/pagination parameters, and no annotations beyond the safety flags, the description should explain what a listing returns and how limit/offset/search behave. It does none of that, leaving an agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Eleven parameters exist with only 64% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions none of them. Fields like 'sort' (no description) and the boolean filters (checkin_email, use_default_eula, require_acceptance) get no clarifying meaning from the prose, so the coverage gap is left unfilled.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description says 'List categories', a recognizable verb+resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the title 'GET /categories'. It gives no way to tell this apart from the numerous sibling category endpoints (snipeit_gen_categories_2, snipeit_gen_categoriesid, etc.) or to know what the listing contains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this endpoint versus the sibling category or raw-request tools, and no mention of preconditions or typical scenarios. The only hint is the HTTP verb in the title.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools