Skip to main content
Glama
the-real-snipeit-mcp

the-real-snipeit-mcp

GET /hardware

snipeit_gen_hardware_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and filter Snipe-IT hardware assets by status, model, location, company, or search text, with sorting, limits, and offsets for paginated asset listings.

Instructions

GET /hardware: Return a listing of assets. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation hardware-list.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSpecify the column name you wish to sort by
limitNoSpecify the number of results you wish to return. Defaults to 50, but we have it set to 2 by default so the API explorer doesn't scroll forever.
orderNoSpecify the order (asc or desc) you wish to order by on your sort column
filterNoKey value pair of the field you want to search on and the value, for example: `{"name":"hello","asset_tag":"12345"}`
offsetNoOffset to use
searchNoA text string to search the assets data for
statusNoOptionally restrict asset results to one of these status types: RTD, Deployed, Undeployable, Deleted, Archived, Requestable
model_idNoOptionally restrict asset results to this asset model ID
status_idNoOptionally restrict asset results to this status label ID
company_idNoOptionally restrict asset results to this company ID
assigned_toNo
category_idNoOptionally restrict asset results to this status label ID
location_idNoOptionally restrict asset results to this location ID
order_numberNoReturn only assets associated with a specific order number
assigned_typeNo
manufacturer_idNoOptionally restrict asset results to this asset model ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond a provenance note ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation'), omitting pagination defaults, result caps, and response shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, but the leading 'GET /hardware:' merely repeats the title and the 'Generated from...' clause conveys no operational value. Concise, but the space is not spent on anything useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 16-parameter listing endpoint with no output schema, the description should explain pagination behavior, default result limits, and how the filtering parameters combine. None of that is present, so the agent is left to infer call semantics entirely from the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 88%, so the schema itself documents nearly every parameter including sort, limit, filter, and status. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb and resource ('Return a listing of assets'), which is marginally more than the title. But it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling list/search tools (snipeit_list_hardware, snipeit_search_hardware, snipeit_gen_hardware_by_id, etc.), leaving the agent unable to tell which listing endpoint to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With ~16 sibling hardware tools in the namespace, the description gives the agent nothing to route on.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools