snipeit_gen_modelsidRetrieve details for a specific Snipe-IT asset model by ID, enabling targeted asset management lookups without listing all models.
GET /models/{id}: Retrieve the specific details of a model by id. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation modelsid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | model id |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on not-found handling, permissions, or what a successful lookup returns — and the only extra sentence is generator provenance boilerplate.
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 endpoint and purpose are front-loaded in one tight sentence. The trailing "Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation modelsid" is metadata that does not help invocation but is short and harmless.
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 read-only single-parameter fetch this is minimally sufficient, and annotations carry the safety semantics. With no output schema, an agent still has no idea what a model record contains or how errors surface, which the description could have hinted at.
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 100% and the single required `id` parameter is documented in the schema as "model id". The description's "by id" restates the schema rather than adding format, range, or lookup-failure semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve the specific details of a model by id"), so an agent knows it is a single-record fetch. It does not distinguish itself from the many near-identical siblings such as snipeit_gen_modelsid_1/_2/_3, whose purpose relative to this one is left ambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus snipeit_list_models (snipeit_gen_models) or the duplicate /models/{id} variants. An agent is left to infer that lookup-by-id is the selection criterion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.