snipeit_gen_statuslabels_1Creates a new Snipe-IT status label with a name, type, and optional color, notes, navigation visibility, or default setting for asset status tracking.
POST /statuslabels: Create a new status label. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation statuslabels-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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description merely restates 'create' without explaining what the destructive hint means here, whether duplicates are rejected, or what permissions are needed. It also omits the write-confirmation flow, which is a behavioral detail that would materially change how an agent calls it.
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?
It is short and front-loads the action, but the trailing 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation statuslabels-1' is provenance noise that consumes space without helping the agent.
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?
A mutation tool with no output schema and a partially documented nested body needs more: the confirm gate and the semantics of the type enum/optional flags are not explained anywhere the agent can easily see. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is a real but moderate gap.
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 50% and the description says nothing about parameters. The nested body object carries six properties (name, type enum, color, notes, show_in_nav, default_label) with only 'confirm' documented in the schema, so the description should compensate for the undocumented fields but adds zero 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 ('Create a new status label') and the HTTP route, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling list/get/update statuslabel tools. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the create action is unambiguous.
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 create a status label versus using an existing one, no prerequisites, and no mention of the confirm='YES' gate that the schema requires when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true. The agent is left to infer all invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.