snipeit_list_audit_dueLists hardware assets due for audit and supports pagination with limit, offset, or auto-pagination up to 10,000 rows.
GET /hardware/audit/due
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | If true, auto-paginate up to 10,000 rows or until the result size cap; if the cap is hit the result has truncated: true and next_offset to continue with limit/offset | |
| 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety story is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond the path — no note on result shape, whether overdue items are included, or how audit-due is computed.
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 that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — a single endpoint path with no front-loaded statement of what the tool does or returns.
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 paginated list tool with no output schema and partially undocumented parameters, the description should at least explain the resource and pagination semantics. Neither is present, leaving the agent to guess from the endpoint string.
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?
Three parameters with only 33% schema description coverage: 'all' is documented, but 'limit' and 'offset' have no descriptions in the schema and no explanation in the tool description. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap in a paginated list tool.
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 only the raw HTTP path 'GET /hardware/audit/due', effectively restating the name and title. It never states in prose that this lists hardware assets due for auditing, nor does it distinguish 'due' from the sibling snipeit_list_audit_overdue or snipeit_gen_hardwareauditdue.
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?
No guidance at all on when to call this versus snipeit_list_audit_overdue, snipeit_audit_hardware, or the generic snipeit_raw_request. The agent must infer the due-vs-overdue distinction from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.