snipeit_gen_testinputCreates a Snipe-IT license by posting name, seats, and category ID to /licenses, with optional metadata and a write-confirmation check.
POST /licenses: /licenses/. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation testinput.
| 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 openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not mention that a full license body must be created, that this is irreversible, or how the confirm gate behaves (only the schema's 'confirm' field explains that). 'testinput' is noise rather than disclosure.
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, but it is under-specified rather than concise: two fragments that convey path and provenance only. No useful content is front-loaded because there is no useful content at all.
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, non-idempotent write with a large nested request body, no output schema, and no usage context, this description is wholly inadequate. An agent could not confidently construct a valid call from it.
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 only the 'confirm' field carries a description; the 18-field nested body object (name, seats, category_id required, plus dates, costs, and IDs) is entirely undocumented semantically. The description compensates with zero information about any parameter, leaving the agent to guess field meaning and valid formats.
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 text restates the HTTP method and path ('POST /licenses: /licenses/') and adds only the opaque phrase 'operation testinput'. An agent can infer a create-license intent only from the path, not from any stated verb+resource. With ~150 sibling tools including snipeit_gen_licenses, snipeit_gen_licensesid_1, and snipeit_gen_put_licensesidseatsseat_id, this gives almost no differentiation.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling alternative to prefer. Nothing distinguishes it from the other license endpoints or from snipeit_raw_request.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.