Retrieves a Semaphore UI project role by project ID and role slug, helping clients check role details when edition, license, and permissions allow access.
get project role. Availability depends on Semaphore edition, license, and permissions; some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. GET /project/{project_id}/roles/{role_slug}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role_slug | 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 read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context beyond annotations: edition/license/permission dependence and possible 404 or empty-list responses on Community routes.
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 three compact sentences with the action and endpoint front-loaded. The availability caveat is relevant and there is no filler.
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 simple read-only getter, the annotations and availability caveat provide useful context. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits return-value shape and detailed parameter meaning, so it is callable but not fully complete.
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 description only restates the parameter names through the endpoint template. It does not explain role_slug format, project_id constraints, or what identifying a project role entails, leaving meaningful semantic gaps for both required parameters.
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 'get' and resource 'project role', and the endpoint path makes single-role retrieval by project and slug clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_project_roles or get_global_role, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and endpoint template: retrieve one project role by project_id and role_slug. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus list_project_roles or get_global_role; the availability caveat is not the same as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.