Retrieve details of a specific access key in a SemaphoreUI project by providing its ID and key ID.
Get an access key by ID.
Args: project_id: ID of the project key_id: ID of the access key
Returns: Access key details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns access key details, but omits any specifics about what those details include, whether the operation is read-only, or any permissions required.
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?
The description is relatively concise at three lines, but the Args section is largely redundant with the schema. It could be condensed into a single sentence without losing clarity.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return details are covered), the description lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. For a simple get-by-ID tool, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the parameter descriptions ('ID of the project', 'ID of the access key') are generic and add little beyond the schema's property titles. They do not explain format, constraints, or how to obtain valid IDs.
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 clearly states 'Get an access key by ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_access_keys (which retrieve multiple) and create/delete/update (which are mutations).
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it requires an existing key ID or that one should use list_access_keys to obtain an ID first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.