Retrieves the permissions assigned to a specific Semaphore UI template within a project, helping you audit access and verify who can view or manage that template.
Get Template Perms. GET /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/perms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond restating the REST endpoint path, disclosing no pagination, ordering, or return-shape behavior for a list operation.
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 fragments with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economical expression – the whole description is essentially the tool name plus a URL.
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 two-required-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotation gaps, the description should at minimum clarify that it returns all permission entries for a template and how that differs from the single-permission getter. It does neither, leaving an agent with no basis to choose between siblings.
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% – neither project_id nor template_id has a description. The endpoint path hints both are path identifiers scoped to a project and template respectively, which is marginal, but there is no statement about what a template ID refers to, ownership requirements, or any constraint beyond the schema's minimum:1.
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+resource ('Get Template Perms') is identifiable, but the abbreviation 'Perms' is terse and the description never distinguishes this list operation from the sibling get_template_permission (singular) or create/update/delete_template_permission. An agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction from the tool name alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of the singular get_template_permission alternative. The only usage signal is the implicit 'this is a read' from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.