semaphore-mcp-server

inventory_create

Create a new inventory for a project, specifying host list, SSH key, type, and optional become key.

Instructions

Create a new inventory.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "inventory": "<inventory>",
      "ssh_key_id": "<ssh_key_id>"
    },
    "name": "inventory_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The ID of the project.
`name`	Yes	Inventory name.
`inventory`	Yes	Inventory content (hosts list or path).
`ssh_key_id`	Yes	ID of the SSH key to use.
`type`	No	Inventory type (static, static-yaml, file).	static
`become_key_id`	No	ID of the become (sudo) key (optional).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a new inventory.' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or behavior on duplicate names. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not provide any additional context or front-loading of key information, though it is not verbose.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters (4 required) and an output schema, but the description does not mention return values or any creation behavior. Given the complexity and absence of usage context, it is under-specified.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Create a new inventory.' clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'inventory', directly distinguishing it from sibling tools like inventory_delete, inventory_get, inventory_list.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to create vs list or delete), nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for use.

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