snipeit_gen_locations_2Create a new location in Snipe-IT by sending a POST request with a required name plus optional address, parent, and manager details.
POST /locations: Create a new location. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation locations-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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms the create operation but adds no extra behavioral context such as permissions, side effects, or the confirm-write requirement.
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-loads the useful action. The second sentence about OpenAPI generation is provenance rather than invocation guidance, but overall it is efficient.
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 destructive create endpoint with a nested body and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites, required-field emphasis, side effects, and any response context beyond what annotations and the partial schema provide.
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 description does not explain the body fields or the confirm parameter, leaving parameter meaning to the schema. With only 50% schema description coverage and a nested body object, the description does not compensate for the missing semantics.
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 /locations: Create a new location." This clearly distinguishes creation from read/update/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or scope.
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?
It implies this endpoint creates a location, but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as update or raw request tools. The agent must infer all usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.