Creates a new inventory in a Semaphore UI project through the project inventory API, letting you define host and credential details for automation tasks.
create inventory. POST /project/{project_id}/inventory. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| project_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 declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds the endpoint and a useful encoding constraint for JSON-encoded string fields. However, it does not explain permissions, side effects, or what creation affects beyond the project scope.
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 short and front-loads the core action: create inventory. The endpoint and encoding note are relevant, though the phrasing is terse and could be slightly more organized.
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 destructive, non-idempotent create operation with a nested request body and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits permissions, side effects, error behavior, and most body-field semantics, leaving the agent under-informed about a complex mutation.
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%, and the body contains a complex InventoryRequest with fields such as name, type, inventory, runner_tag, ssh_key_id, and template_id. The description only says to supply API fields in the body and keep JSON-encoded strings as strings; it does not clarify required fields, enums, nullable IDs, or project_id/body interaction enough to compensate.
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 clear verb and resource: create an inventory. It also identifies the HTTP path, showing that creation is project-scoped. It does not explicitly distinguish this from update_inventory, delete_inventory, or other create_* tools, but the purpose is still easy to infer.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus update_inventory, list_inventories, or attach_template_inventory. The POST endpoint implies creation, but the description gives no prerequisites, when-not-to-use cases, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.