SemaphoreUI MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_inventory

Update an existing inventory item in a SemaphoreUI project by providing project ID and inventory ID, optionally changing the name, content, or type, and returning the updated details.

Instructions

Update an existing inventory item.

Args: project_id: ID of the project inventory_id: ID of the inventory item to update name: Inventory name (optional) inventory_data: Inventory content for "static", or file path for "file" (optional) inventory_type: Semaphore inventory type, such as "static", "static-yaml", or "file". Defaults to "static"; pass the existing type if you don't intend to change it.

Returns: Updated inventory item details

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`inventory_id`	Yes
`inventory_data`	No
`inventory_type`	No	static

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as permission requirements, error handling, idempotency, or side effects. It only states that the tool updates an item without explaining consequences or limitations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and structured with a docstring. However, the docstring is somewhat verbose and could be more concise while retaining clarity.

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?

The description covers basic purpose and parameter semantics, but given the tool has five parameters and no annotation, it lacks information on error handling, prerequisites, and return behavior (though output schema exists). Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning to all five parameters, including explanations for inventory_data and inventory_type. This compensates well for the bare schema, though minor details like value constraints could be added.

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 'Update an existing inventory item' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like create_inventory and delete_inventory, though it could be more explicit about the type of inventory (e.g., Semaphore).

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 such as create_inventory or delete_inventory. The description implies usage for modifications but does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server