snipeit_gen_models_1Create a new asset model in Snipe-IT with required name and category ID, plus optional fields for manufacturer, model number, fieldset, and EOL.
POST /models: Create a model. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation models-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?
The annotations already disclose that this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write operation. The description only repeats that it creates a model and adds no further behavioral context such as required permissions, confirmation semantics, or what happens on failure.
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 action, but the trailing provenance note ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation models-1') adds little operational value. Its brevity leaves important gaps rather than being optimally concise.
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 write tool with a nested body and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the required body fields, the confirm gate, or any usage context needed to safely invoke the tool.
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 description provides no information about the body fields or the confirm parameter. It does not compensate for undocumented nested properties like name, category_id, eol, fieldset_id, or manufacturer_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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a model' for POST /models. This distinguishes it from read/update/delete model operations in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate among the many gen_models variants.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snipeit_gen_modelsid_1 for updates or snipeit_raw_request. No prerequisites, confirmation requirements, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.