Retrieves repositories for a specified Semaphore UI project, with optional sorting by name, Git URL, or SSH key and ascending/descending order. Use it to inspect available project repositories.
Get repositories. GET /project/{project_id}/repositories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | sorting name | |
| order | No | ordering manner | |
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the raw endpoint path, with nothing about pagination, result ordering defaults, or the fact that all repositories in the project are returned.
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 the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The endpoint restatement is mildly redundant but not wasteful.
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 three-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description leaves out scoping behavior, pagination, sort/order semantics, and return shape. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently predict what it gets back.
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?
The description says nothing about project_id, sort, or order beyond echoing the path template. With schema description coverage at 67%, project_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description does not compensate by explaining sorting or ordering behavior.
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 ('repositories') plus the underlying endpoint, which reads as a project-scoped listing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_repository (singular) or list_repository_branches, but the plural resource makes the intent clear enough.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_repository or list_repository_branches, and no stated prerequisites such as project membership or permissions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.