Retrieve a specific template permission by project, template, and permission ID to inspect access settings in Semaphore UI.
Get Template Perm. GET /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/perms/{perm_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| perm_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| template_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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the REST path, with no information on error behavior (e.g., missing permission), authorization requirements, or what the returned permission object contains.
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 sentences with no filler and the intent front-loaded. The only waste is the cryptic abbreviation 'Perm' instead of the full resource name, which trades clarity for brevity.
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 tool with annotations covering the safety profile, more is still needed: what the response looks like (no output schema), and how it relates to list_template_permissions. As written, an agent knows the address but not the payload or the selection rationale.
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 carry param meaning. The URL template does indicate all three parameters are positional path segments in a project->template->perm hierarchy, which helps slightly, but there is no detail on ID acquisition, formats, or what a perm_id refers to.
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 verb 'Get' plus the endpoint path shows retrieval of a single template permission scoped by project/template/perm IDs. However, the abbreviated 'Get Template Perm.' is ambiguous on its own (perm = permission?) and doesn't distinguish it from the many siblings such as list_template_permissions or get_project_permissions.
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 at all on when to use this versus list_template_permissions (which would enumerate permissions) or get_project_permissions. The agent must infer single-item retrieval purely from the path template.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.