Creates a global role in Semaphore UI by submitting role details such as slug, name, and permissions to the roles API.
create global role. Availability depends on Semaphore edition, license, and permissions; some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. POST /roles. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation and destructive/open-world profile, and the description adds edition/license gating, possible 404/empty-list responses, and the underlying POST /roles endpoint. It does not disclose required permission level, duplicate-slug behavior, or what happens on failure, which matters for a non-idempotent create.
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 front-loaded with the operation and three compact sentences with no filler. 'Supply API fields in body' is slightly redundant with the schema but not wasteful.
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?
For a create endpoint with a nested, undocumented body and no output schema, the description covers availability and transport-level behavior but omits the field-level semantics and permission requirements an agent needs to construct a valid call. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 carries the full burden, yet it only says to supply API fields in the body and keep JSON-encoded strings as strings. It never explains the required slug, name, permissions (apparently an integer bitmask), or optional project_id, leaving the nested body effectively undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('create global role'), so an agent knows what operation it performs. It does not distinguish this from the sibling create_project_role or explain the global-vs-project scope difference, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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?
It gives useful availability context ('depends on Semaphore edition, license, and permissions') and warns that some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. However, it never says when to choose this over create_project_role or update_global_role, nor what prerequisites must be satisfied first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.