snipeit_gen_fieldsetsCreates a new Snipe-IT fieldset by submitting its required name, enabling organized custom field grouping through the API.
POST /fieldsets: Create a Fieldset. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation fieldsets.
| 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 disclose destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, openWorld, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond it – nothing about the required confirmation flow (SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES) or the irreversible side effects of creating a fieldset. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added value.
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, which is good, but the trailing clause 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation fieldsets' is pure provenance boilerplate that earns no place in an agent-facing description.
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 simple one-field create, the name alone gets the agent most of the way, and no output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Still, nothing addresses the confirmation requirement or what a fieldset create affects, leaving gaps for a destructive, nested-body write.
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%: the nested body.name field has no description and the description does not compensate. The 'confirm' gate parameter is documented only in the schema, not explained in the description, despite being a critical precondition for a destructive write.
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?
States the verb and resource ("Create a Fieldset") which is unambiguous on its own, but it is essentially the title restated and gives no clue how it differs from the many sibling fieldset tools (snipeit_gen_fields, snipeit_gen_fieldsetsid, snipeit_gen_update_fields). Minimum viable 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 when-to-use, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the create path versus list/update/delete fieldset endpoints, several of which look similar under a 'gen' naming scheme.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.