Updates an existing Semaphore UI project by applying supplied fields to its project ID, including name, demo, alert, type, and parallel task settings. Use it to change project configuration through the management API.
Update project. PUT /project/{project_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| 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 destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful constraint ('JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings' and that body must carry API fields), but it never explains what a destructive update replaces or what fields are lost.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded and free of padding. The endpoint and body mechanic are stated efficiently, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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 destructive mutation with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a nested request body, the description is far too thin. It omits the body field semantics and the implication of destructive=true, which an agent needs before calling it.
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% (only 'demo' is documented), so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions project_id, the required 'name', or the body fields (type, alert, alert_chat, max_parallel_tasks), leaving the caller to infer everything from the schema.
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 verb (update) and resource (project) and adds the underlying PUT endpoint, but 'Update project' largely restates the tool name. It never says what aspects of a project are updated or how this differs from neighboring tools like update_project_role, update_project_user, or update_project_runner.
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 use this tool versus the many other project-related mutators, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The only instruction ('Supply API fields in body') is a call mechanic, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.