Add an extracted value to a Semaphore UI integration by defining its key, variable, and body or header source, so it populates environment or task variables.
Add Integration Extracted Value. POST /project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_id}/values. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| integration_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful implementation context by naming the POST endpoint and warning that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, or behavior when the value already exists.
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 three short sentences, front-loads the action, then gives the endpoint and one concrete caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.
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?
This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with a nested body object whose fields are entirely undocumented in the schema. The description provides the endpoint and one field-format warning but leaves out required body-field semantics, expected effects, and any permissions or duplicate-handling context.
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 for undocumented parameters. It only identifies project_id and integration_id through the path and vaguely says to 'Supply API fields in body'; it does not explain body fields such as key, name, variable, value_source, variable_type, body_data_type, or their enums.
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: 'Add Integration Extracted Value', and reinforces it with the exact POST endpoint. It is distinguishable from sibling operations like update_integration_value, delete_integration_value, and get_integration_value by the create verb, though the phrasing is slightly awkward.
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?
The word 'Add' implies creation, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_integration_value or other integration-value tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.