snipeit_gen_consumables_1Create a new consumable in Snipe-IT using required name, quantity, and category ID, with optional details such as item number, location, and purchase date.
POST /consumables: Create a new consumable. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation consumables-1.
| 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?
With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, the safety profile is already covered, so the bar is lower — but the description adds nothing beyond the word "Create": no mention of side effects, required permissions, duplicate-name handling, or what a successful write returns. Note the destructiveHint=true on a create operation is questionable in the annotations themselves, not contradicted by the description.
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 short and front-loads the action, but the second sentence ("Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation consumables-1.") is internal provenance noise that provides no value to a calling agent.
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 write tool with a nested 11-field body, no output schema, and no explanation of success/failure semantics or response content. Given that complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is far too thin to let an agent call it confidently.
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%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never mentions the nested body object, the required name/qty/category_id fields, or the confirm gate — an agent gets zero parameter meaning from the text.
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 new consumable"), which is clearer than the bare title POST /consumables. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling consumable endpoints (list, update, checkout), and the second sentence is pure provenance metadata rather than purpose.
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_gen_consumables (list), snipeit_gen_consumables_2 (update), or snipeit_gen_consumablesidcheckout. It also never mentions the confirm=YES write gate, which is a real invocation prerequisite even though the schema documents it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.