snipeit_get_license_seatsList all seats assigned to a specific license by license ID, with optional limit and offset for pagination. Use it to audit license seat allocation and user assignments.
GET /licenses/{id}/seats: list all seats for a license.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further: no indication of whether seats are paginated, whether unassigned seats are included, or what a seat record represents, which matters for an openWorldHint=true tool.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. But the 'GET /licenses/{id}/seats:' prefix is largely redundant with the tool name and adds no decision-relevant information, so the brevity comes from omission rather than economy.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations explaining return contents, the description should say at least what a seat record contains or how results are paginated. Instead it stops at restating the endpoint, which is insufficient for an agent to call it confidently or interpret the response.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the three parameters. It only implies that id is a license identifier via the path template; limit (max 500) and offset are never mentioned, so pagination semantics are entirely undocumented.
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 names a specific verb (list) and resource (seats for a license) and echoes the HTTP path, so the operation is identifiable. However, it adds nothing beyond the title 'Get seats for a license' and does not distinguish it from near-duplicate siblings such as snipeit_gen_licensesidseats or snipeit_get_user_licenses, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 versus snipeit_list_licenses, snipeit_get_user_licenses, or snipeit_checkout_license_seat. The agent gets no exclusion criteria and no hint that this is the read-only seat-inventory view rather than the checkout mutation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.