Modify an existing Semaphore UI template by updating its configuration fields through the project template API, including app, inventory, playbook, vaults, and task parameters.
Updates template. PUT /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| template_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. The description adds useful transport context with the PUT endpoint and a non-obvious note that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings. It still does not explain what a destructive update replaces, whether omitted fields are cleared, or what authorization is required.
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 brief and front-loaded, with the operation stated first and the endpoint and body-format warning following. It is appropriately sized, though the generic 'Supply API fields in body' sentence adds limited value.
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?
Given the large and conditional body schema, destructive update behavior, and lack of an output schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It omits required body semantics, conditional requirements, and the effect of the update on existing template configuration.
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, but it only says to supply API fields in the body. It does not explain the complex body structure, app-dependent requirements such as inventory_id for Ansible or playbook defaults, or the meaning of nested fields like survey_vars and task_params.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Updates template.' The PUT endpoint reinforces that this is an update operation on an existing template. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling update_template_description or clarify how it differs from create_template.
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 alternatives such as update_template_description or create_template. The description also omits prerequisites such as required permissions or when a full PUT update should be used instead of a more targeted update.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.