Retrieve project inventories from Semaphore UI, with optional filtering by application or template and sorting by name or type.
Get inventory. GET /project/{project_id}/inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | ||
| sort | No | sorting name | |
| order | No | ordering manner | |
| project_id | Yes | ||
| template_id | No |
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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond the path—no mention of pagination, result limits, or what filtering behavior to expect when optional params are omitted.
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 short, but that is under-specification rather than concision—two fragments that convey almost no information. Including the raw HTTP path is the only concrete detail and it displaces more useful guidance.
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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without the list semantics, filtering behavior, or ordering conventions it needs. The annotations cover safety but not the operational context this tool requires.
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 only 40% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The filter parameters app, template_id, sort, and order are never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from bare property names which are filters and which are ordering controls.
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?
"Get inventory" essentially restates the tool name and adds only a raw HTTP path. It never says this returns a list of inventories scoped to a project, and with a sibling named get_inventory the description does nothing to distinguish listing from fetching a single 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 call this versus get_inventory, list_templates, or the inventory-related create/update/delete siblings. The endpoint path weakly implies project scoping, but no prerequisites or alternative-selection criteria are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.