snipeit_gen_hardware_createCreates a new hardware asset in Snipe-IT via POST /hardware, requiring asset tag, status ID, and model ID to register equipment programmatically.
POST /hardware: Creates a new asset. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation hardware-create.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is structurally known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it creates an asset; it does not explain the destructive implication or the confirm safeguard.
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-loaded, but the second clause about being generated from an OpenAPI operation adds little value to an agent. It is concise to the point of under-specification for a destructive creation tool.
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 complex mutation with a nested body, destructive annotations, and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain operational expectations. It omits required-field semantics, confirmation behavior, and side effects, leaving significant gaps.
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%, with the nested body object's asset fields undocumented. The description mentions no parameters and does not explain the required asset_tag, status_id, model_id, or the confirm string beyond what the schema itself provides.
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: POST /hardware creates a new asset. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this generated endpoint from the sibling snipeit_create_hardware or related update tools.
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 says only that it creates a new asset, with no guidance on when to use it versus snipeit_create_hardware or snipeit_raw_request. It provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.