glpi-mcp

Get a GLPI item

glpi_get_item

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the complete record of any GLPI item—such as an asset, user, group, or knowledge-base article—by specifying its itemtype and ID.

Instructions

Full record of one item of any itemtype (asset, user, group, KB article, ...).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "itemtype": "<itemtype>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_get_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`itemtype`	Yes	GLPI itemtype, e.g. Computer, Monitor, NetworkEquipment, Printer, Phone, Software, User, Group, Entity, Location, ITILCategory, Supplier, Contract, Document, KnowbaseItem

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the whole record is returned (no partial field selection) and nothing about permission requirements or behavior on unknown id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden; 'full record' is the only hint and there is no mention of field format, error behavior for a bad id/itemtype, or permissions. For a generic polymorphic getter over many itemtypes, this leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: itemtype is documented with a useful enum-like example list, but 'id' carries no description in either the schema or the description. The description contributes nothing about parameter semantics, leaving the undocumented half uncompensated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full record of one item of any itemtype') and enumerates the breadth of itemtypes, which distinguishes it from list/search siblings like glpi_search_items and glpi_list_items. It does not explicitly say it returns a single record by id, but 'one item' plus 'full record' conveys that.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as glpi_get_ticket (a specialisation), glpi_search_items (when the id is unknown), or glpi_raw_get. The agent must infer that this is the id-known single-record read.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server