snipeit_get_user_accessoriesRetrieve all accessories assigned to a specific user by ID in Snipe-IT. Use this to verify current user accessory allocations.
GET /users/{id}/accessories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
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 fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the route: no note on pagination, response shape, whether it includes checked-in accessories, or error behavior for unknown user ids. With annotations doing all the work, this is a minimal contribution.
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 by under-specification, not conciseness — there is no prose to be front-loaded because there is no prose at all. A single route string is not a usable summary of behavior.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned (accessory records, quantities, checkout dates, pagination). It does none of that, and with a large sibling set containing near-duplicate endpoints, an agent has no basis to pick this one confidently.
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% and the single parameter 'id' has no description in the schema. The route template '{id}' hints that it is the user id, but no format, type constraints, or examples are given beyond the schema's integer type. The description barely compensates 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?
The description is nothing but the raw HTTP route 'GET /users/{id}/accessories'. It technically identifies the resource (accessories for a user), but it restates the tool name rather than explaining what the tool does in agent-readable terms. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as snipeit_gen_usersidaccessories, which appears to target 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., snipeit_list_accessories or snipeit_gen_usersidaccessories). The agent must infer usage purely from the route string. The closest thing to guidance is the implied 'read accessories belonging to a user', which is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.