semaphore-mcp-server

inventory_get

Retrieve detailed information about a specific inventory by providing the project and inventory IDs.

Instructions

Get details of a specific 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>",
      "inventory_id": "<inventory_id>"
    },
    "name": "inventory_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The ID of the project.
`inventory_id`	Yes	The ID of the inventory.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires permissions. The name implies a read operation, but additional context (e.g., error handling, idempotency) is missing.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief; a bit more detail on the return value could be added without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the minimal description is adequate but not rich. Extra context about what 'details' entails would improve completeness. Since an output schema is present, the description is not required to explain return values, but some additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types. It does not explain the purpose of 'project_id' and 'inventory_id' or how they are used to locate the inventory.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('specific inventory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'inventory_list' (list) and 'inventory_create/delete'. However, the term 'details' is vague and could be more specific about what information is returned.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for retrieving a single inventory, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with sibling tools like 'inventory_list'.

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