Modify an existing Semaphore UI repository by project and repository IDs, supplying updated name, Git URL, branch, or SSH key fields in the request body.
Updates repository. PUT /project/{project_id}/repositories/{repository_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| repository_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 description should clarify what is destroyed. 'PUT' hints at full replacement, but it never says existing fields are overwritten/cleared, nor that omitted fields may be reset, nor that required fields must be resupplied. The note about JSON-encoded string fields is only marginal additional behavior.
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 sentences with no filler; the endpoint and body caveat are stated efficiently. Slightly clipped phrasing ('Updates repository') costs a bit of readability but nothing is wasted.
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, non-read-only mutation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not say what state is replaced, whether the call is a full overwrite, or what the response contains. An agent could invoke it with incomplete body knowledge and unintentionally clobber repository settings.
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 compensate. It only offers the generic instruction to 'supply API fields in body' and a warning that JSON-encoded string fields stay strings — it never mentions the required name and git_url, the nullable ssh_key_id, git_branch, or that the body is a RepositoryRequest object. Most parameter meaning is left undisclosed.
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 and resource ('Updates repository') plus the HTTP method and path, which confirms it is a replacement-style update of an existing repository. However, 'Updates repository' largely restates the tool name, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like create_repository, get_repository, or delete_repository beyond the path string.
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 versus create_repository or when to prefer a narrower update. No prerequisites, no mention of what happens if the repository does not exist, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.