snipeit_gen_componentsid_3Deletes a Snipe-IT component by ID via DELETE /components/{id}, accepting a required YES confirmation when write confirmations are enabled.
DELETE /components/{id}: Deletes a component. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation componentsid-3.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only a restatement that the component is deleted, without explaining irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects on associated assets, or expected response behavior.
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?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action. The OpenAPI generation note is mildly boilerplate, but overall there is no significant verbosity or structural issue.
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 annotations and schema provide enough safety and confirmation context for an agent to invoke the tool minimally. Still, for a destructive delete operation, the description leaves out important context about what deletion implies and how it differs from related component endpoints.
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?
The schema documents the confirm parameter and its SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES behavior, but the required id parameter has no schema description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining what id refers to or any parameter semantics beyond the operation name.
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: 'DELETE /components/{id}: Deletes a component.' That clearly identifies the operation. However, with many sibling component endpoints, it does not distinguish this delete operation from related component tools beyond the verb itself.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The destructive nature is only conveyed through annotations and the schema's confirm parameter, not through usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.