snipeit_get_statuslabel_assetsRetrieve paginated assets assigned to a specific Snipe-IT status label by ID. Use pagination to browse matching assets for auditing, tracking, or reporting.
GET /statuslabels/{id}/assetlist: returns paginated assets that have this status label assigned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Status label ID | |
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description's only added behavior is that results are 'paginated', which is minor; it says nothing about ordering, default page size, or the fact that the asset list can be large.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and the key predicate. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented pagination parameters.
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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent knows it gets assets for a status label. It omits response shape (bare asset list vs. wrapped object), pagination defaults, and how it differs from the many sibling list tools.
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 coverage is only 33% — only 'id' is documented in the schema; 'limit' and 'offset' have no descriptions at all. The description's single word 'paginated' does not explain the limit's 1-500 bounds, defaults, or offset semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Names a specific resource and relationship: assets having a given status label, with the underlying endpoint stated. Clear verb+resource, though it doesn't differentiate from the near-identical sibling snipeit_gen_statuslabelsidassetlist, which appears to wrap the same endpoint.
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 phrase 'assets that have this status label assigned' implies the use case (enumerating assets by status), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as listing hardware or the duplicate statuslabel-assetlist sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.