Update an existing secret storage in a Semaphore UI project by storage ID. Use it to change a storage's name, type, parameters, or sync settings via the management API.
Update. PUT /project/{project_id}/secret_storages/{storage_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| storage_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 and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not explain what is destructive, whether omitted body fields are cleared, or what permissions are needed. The only added behavioral note is that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, which is useful but narrow.
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, but the opening "Update." is a wasted tautology. The endpoint and body-format sentence earn their place, but the overall structure is too sparse for the operation.
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 complex nested-object mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions. The description provides only the endpoint and a body-string caveat, leaving an agent without enough context to safely perform the update.
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 contains many nested fields, so the description must compensate. It says to supply API fields in the body and warns that JSON-encoded string fields must stay strings, but it does not explain the body fields, replacement semantics, or which fields are required.
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's only prose purpose statement is the bare word "Update." and it identifies the resource mainly through the endpoint path. It does not explain that this modifies an existing secret storage's configuration, so it largely restates the tool name rather than distinguishing it from sibling operations.
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 states the HTTP method and path and says to supply API fields in the body, but gives no guidance on when to use this instead of create_secret_storage, delete_secret_storage, or get_secret_storage. There are also no prerequisites or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.