snipeit_gen_fields_2Create a custom field in Snipe-IT by defining its name, element type, format, and optional settings, so assets can capture the extra data your workflow requires.
POST /fields: Create a custom field. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation fields-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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain that this creates a permanent configuration object, what happens on duplicate names, or that a confirmation string may be required (that only appears in the schema).
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 with the action. The trailing 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation fields-2' is provenance noise that provides no decision value, but the overall size is appropriate.
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 tool with a nested, largely undocumented body schema and no output schema. An agent has no information about what a valid field definition looks like, which element types exist, or what the response returns, making the definition too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 coverage is only 50%, and the nested body object has seven properties (name, element, format, help_text, field_values, show_in_email, field_encrypted) with no descriptions at all. The description could have explained the required name/element pair or the enum of element types, but instead says nothing about parameters.
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 custom field.' The endpoint notation 'POST /fields' reinforces the mutation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from near-identical siblings such as snipeit_gen_fields, snipeit_gen_fields_1, or snipeit_gen_update_fields, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given that several sibling tools appear to target the same endpoint family, this is a real gap rather than an implied one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.