Updates a user's role within a Semaphore UI project by sending the new role value to the project user endpoint.
Update user role. PUT /project/{project_id}/users/{user_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| user_id | 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 destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds PUT semantics and a real gotcha (JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings), but does not say what happens to the user's prior role or what permissions the caller needs for a destructive mutation.
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, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the verb and endpoint land first. The "JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings" line borders on boilerplate but carries an actual formatting warning.
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 a required nested body and no output schema, the definition leaves the critical unknown unresolved: the shape and acceptable values of the role field. It also says nothing about the response, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of a state-changing call.
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% and the body is a nested object whose only property, "role", is undocumented. The description says only "Supply API fields in body", which does not reveal whether role expects an ID or a name, or what values are valid, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 and resource ("Update user role") and pins it to the concrete endpoint PUT /project/{project_id}/users/{user_id}, which distinguishes it from the global update_user and the role-definition update_project_role. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the path.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over update_user (global) or update_project_role (role definitions), nor what prerequisites (admin permission, existing membership) are required before calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.