Removes an extract value from a Semaphore UI integration by project, integration, and value IDs. Use it to clean up stored integration credentials or configuration entries you no longer need.
Removes integration extract value. DELETE /project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_id}/values/{value_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value_id | 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 declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating deletion — no mention of whether dependent data is removed, whether the deletion cascades, or whether errors occur when references exist.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The endpoint path is compact and informative rather than filler, though it takes space that could have carried behavioral detail.
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, no-output-schema mutation with three fully undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: it omits preconditions, side effects on references, and error behavior. Annotations carry the safety signal, but the operational context is missing.
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% for all three required integer parameters, so the description should compensate. The URL template does convey the hierarchy (value_id scoped under integration_id under project_id), which is some help, but no parameter is explained in words or given format/constraint guidance beyond 'minimum: 1' in the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('integration extract value'), and the endpoint path confirms it operates on a single value nested under a project/integration. It is distinguishable from delete_integration, delete_integration_alias and delete_integration_matcher by the 'value' noun, though it never names those siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this rather than deleting the whole integration or an alias/matcher, no preconditions, and no note about consequences for anything referencing the value. Usage is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.