snipeit_gen_maintenances_1Create a new maintenance record in Snipe-IT to track asset repairs, upgrades, or scheduled service with required asset, supplier, type, and start date.
POST /maintenances: Create a new maintenance. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation maintenances-1.
| 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that this is a POST/create operation: it does not explain what happens on creation, whether the confirm parameter is required, or what side effects occur.
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 verb+resource phrase. However, the second sentence is boilerplate generator metadata that does not help an agent invoke the tool correctly and could be removed without loss.
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 destructive mutation with a nested required body and a special confirm parameter, but the description provides none of that operational context. Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of annotations, the description should at least clarify required body fields or the confirmation requirement, but it does not.
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%, and the nested body contains multiple required fields (name, asset_id, supplier_id, asset_maintenance_type, start_date) with no descriptions. The description mentions none of these parameters or the confirm parameter, so it does not compensate for the partial schema documentation.
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: 'Create a new maintenance.' This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the very similar sibling names such as snipeit_create_maintenance or snipeit_gen_maintenances, and the 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation maintenances-1' clause adds no operational clarity.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like snipeit_create_maintenance, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or the confirm=YES write-confirmation mechanism. The agent must infer all usage context from the schema and annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.