List IT assets with optional filtering by state, class, or assigned user
List IT assets with optional filtering by state, class, or assigned user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| query | No | Additional encoded query | |
| state | No | Asset state: "in_use", "in_stock", "retired", "missing" | |
| location | No | Location name or sys_id | |
| asset_class | No | Asset class table | |
| assigned_to | No | User sys_id to filter by assignee |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / asset_class / descriptionPrevious value: -"Asset class: \"alm_hardware\", \"alm_license\", \"alm_consumable\""New value: +"Asset class table"Input schema / properties / asset_class / enumAdded value: +[
+ "alm_asset",
+ "alm_hardware",
+ "alm_license",
+ "alm_consumable"
+]v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds only that filtering is optional; it says nothing about pagination behavior or what the caller gets back (no output schema exists to cover this).
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes before the filter list, which is the right order. It is terse to the point of leaving useful detail out, but nothing is wasted.
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 zero-required-parameter read tool with fully documented schema this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say something about the returned collection or the default limit of 25, which materially affects how an agent calls it.
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 100% with enum and format details (state values, asset_class table names), so the schema carries the load. The description names three of six filters but adds no semantics beyond the schema text and omits limit, query, and location entirely.
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?
Specific verb (List) plus resource (IT assets) with the filter dimensions named, which cleanly separates it from get_asset, create_asset, and retire_asset in the sibling set. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent inventory listers like list_software_installs or list_license_positions.
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 word 'optional' clarifies that no filter is required, which is real usage guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_asset or the other asset-adjacent list tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.