Retrieves references for a specific integration value in a Semaphore UI project, showing where the value is used across configuration.
Get Integration Extract Value Refs. GET /project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_id}/values/{value_id}/refs.
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the HTTP path and does not disclose what references are returned, permission requirements, or response characteristics.
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, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently informative. The endpoint sentence adds little beyond the schema path structure.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, an agent lacks important context about what 'refs' are, what is returned, and how the three required IDs relate. Annotations cover safety, but the description does not complete the operational picture.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only shows the three IDs as path placeholders; it does not explain what each ID identifies, valid relationships between them, or how to obtain them.
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 names a specific resource, 'Integration Extract Value Refs,' and adds the HTTP path, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does not clarify what a 'ref' is or distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like get_integration_value or get_integration_references.
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 tool versus alternatives such as get_integration_value or get_integration_references. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.