Creates a view in a Semaphore UI project via POST /project/{project_id}/views. Provide view fields in the body, keeping JSON-encoded string fields as strings.
create view. POST /project/{project_id}/views. 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, destructive, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context via the POST endpoint and the note that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, but it does not explain permissions, side effects, or what exactly is created.
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-loaded with the action and endpoint. The body-format note is relevant, though the fragmentary style and minimal repetition of the tool name keep it from being maximally polished.
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 operation with a nested body schema and no output schema, the description gives the endpoint and a body encoding hint. It remains thin on body-field semantics and permissions, but annotations cover the safety profile and the schema exposes the basic field names and types.
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, but it only mentions project_id implicitly through the path and says to supply 'API fields in body.' It does not document the body fields (title, position, id, project_id) or their required/optional status, aside from a narrow JSON-string note.
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 view') and adds the exact POST endpoint, so the agent can identify the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as update_view or delete_view, but the verb makes the intended action clear.
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 no guidance on when to create a view versus update_view, delete_view, or set_view_positions. There are no prerequisites or exclusions, only the endpoint and a body-format note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.