snipeit_gen_users_2Creates a new user in Snipe-IT via the users API endpoint, accepting required first name, username, and password plus optional details like email, job title, groups, permissions, and manager.
POST /users: Create a new user. Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation users-2.
| 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. However, the description adds nothing about the required confirmation environment variable, required body fields, permission needs, or side effects of creating a user.
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 the first clause repeats the title and the generated-from note is boilerplate. The content is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 write operation with a large nested schema, a confirmation requirement, and no output schema. The description omits all operational details an agent would need to call it correctly.
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 explanation of the nested body fields or the important 'confirm' parameter. It does not compensate for the many undocumented user-creation properties.
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 clear verb and resource ('Create a new user'), but 'POST /users' and the generated-operation note add little beyond the name/title. It does not differentiate this create-user operation from the many sibling user-related tools such as snipeit_gen_users or snipeit_gen_users_3.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the user-creation endpoint from the title and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.