snipeit_gen_get_new_endpoint_consumables_id_userRetrieve the user assigned to a specific consumable by its ID, so you can identify who currently holds it.
GET /consumables/{id}/user. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation get_new-endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the path — no indication of what resource is returned, whether results are filtered/paginated, or what permissions are required. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context.
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, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: the first sentence duplicates the title verbatim and the second is a generic code-generation note. Neither sentence earns its place by conveying information an agent cannot already read from the name.
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?
There is no output schema, no parameter documentation, and the description supplies no semantics for the sole required input or the return shape. For an open-world read endpoint with a 0%-covered schema, this leaves an agent unable to confidently invoke it.
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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. The path implies the id refers to a consumable, but the description never confirms this, states the expected type/format, or clarifies whether it could be a user id.
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 only restates the title/endpoint path ('GET /consumables/{id}/user') plus a provenance note about code generation. It never states in plain language what the operation returns or does (e.g., 'list users who have this consumable checked out'), and does not distinguish it from siblings like snipeit_gen_consumablesid or snipeit_get_user_accessories.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over the many similarly named consumable/user endpoints such as snipeit_gen_consumablesid_1, snipeit_gen_consumablesid_2, or snipeit_gen_usersidaccessories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.