snipeit_gen_categoriesid_3Retrieves a Snipe-IT category by its ID so you can view category details for asset organization and lookup.
GET /categories/{id}: Return a Category by id. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categoriesid-3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Category ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lower bar. It adds nothing beyond them: no statement about auth requirements, error behavior on a missing ID, or what happens with unknown ids. The 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation categoriesid-3' line is provenance boilerplate, not behavioral content.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the resource and operation stated in the first clause. The generated-from suffix is filler, but it costs little.
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?
For a single-parameter read with full annotations and full schema coverage, little is strictly required. However, with four indistinguishable category-get siblings in the toolset, the description leaves the agent unable to pick correctly, which is the one gap that matters here.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents 'Category ID'. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource ('Return a Category by id'), which is clear enough on its own. But the sibling list contains several near-identical tools (snipeit_gen_categoriesid, _1, _2, _3), and the description gives no basis for choosing this one. Purpose is stated without differentiation.
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 indication of when to use this versus the other category-get siblings, nor any prerequisites or alternatives. The agent must infer that all four are the same operation from naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.