Updates an existing Semaphore UI inventory by project and inventory ID, applying supplied API fields in the request body while keeping JSON-encoded string fields as strings.
Updates inventory. PUT /project/{project_id}/inventory/{inventory_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| inventory_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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and a useful note that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, but it does not disclose replacement semantics or what happens to omitted fields in this destructive PUT 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?
The description is short and front-loaded: operation, endpoint, then body instruction. Every sentence contributes, though the final sentence could be slightly clearer about which fields are JSON-encoded.
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?
This is a destructive, idempotent update with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description omits crucial details about update semantics, required body fields, and identifier roles, leaving an agent under-informed despite annotations covering the safety profile.
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 parameter meaning, but it only says to supply API fields in the body and warns about JSON-encoded strings. It does not explain project_id, inventory_id, required body fields, or the meaning of nested InventoryRequest properties.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Updates inventory') and identifies the exact endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from create_inventory/delete_inventory, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the operation name.
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?
It implies when to use the tool by naming the update operation, but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives such as create_inventory. The endpoint is given, but no operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.