Detaches an inventory from a Semaphore UI template by specifying the project, template, and inventory IDs, allowing you to update template-inventory associations.
Detach Inventory. POST /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/inventory/{inventory_id}/detach.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| template_id | Yes | ||
| inventory_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=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond the endpoint path: it doesn't say what gets removed, whether the default inventory linkage is cleared, or what permissions are required.
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?
It is two short, front-loaded lines with no filler, but the second line is mostly redundant with the name rather than adding information. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not from efficient editing.
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?
A destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation needs a fuller description. As given, an agent cannot tell what side effects detaching has (e.g., on tasks or default inventory settings) or what a successful response means.
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% with three required integer parameters, so the description must compensate. The path template only reveals that the three IDs form a project/template/inventory hierarchy; it adds no semantics such as whether inventory_id is scoped to the project or the template.
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 restates the tool name ("Detach Inventory") and adds only an HTTP endpoint. It gives no plain-language statement of what detaching actually does to the relationship between the template and the inventory.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the counterpart sibling attach_template_inventory, or versus delete_inventory. The agent must infer the operation's purpose and any prerequisites on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.