snipeit_gen_categories_2Creates a new Snipe-IT category via POST /categories, requiring a name and category type (asset, accessory, consumable, component, or license) plus optional email and acceptance settings.
POST /categories: Create a Category. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categories-2.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| confirm | No | Required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. Exact string "YES" to apply this write. |
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, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not explain why a create is flagged destructive (e.g., whether it can fail partially), what happens to the required confirm string, or what the response contains. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context earns a 2.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but a third of the text is provenance metadata ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categories-2") that does not help invocation. Efficient in length, weak in payoff.
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 mutating, nested-body tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter description coverage, so the description carries substantial burden. It omits the confirm-write gate, required fields, return behavior, and permission requirements, leaving real gaps for an agent to fill by inference.
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 50%, and the description supplies no parameter information at all. The nested body with required name/category_type and the confirm gate are entirely left to the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a nested-object tool.
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 verb and resource ("Create a Category"), which is better than a title restatement. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling category tools (snipeit_gen_categories_1, snipeit_gen_categoriesid, etc.), so an agent cannot tell why this one applies versus the others. Minimum-viable purpose only.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling category endpoints, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage comes from the word "Create" in the description; nothing else routes the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.