Modify an existing Semaphore UI user's name, email, username, admin status, or alert preferences by supplying updated fields in the request body.
Updates user details. PUT /users/{user_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| user_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 idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context by naming the PUT endpoint (consistent with idempotency) and warning that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, but it never says what 'destructive' means here — e.g. whether omitted fields are cleared in a full PUT replacement or left untouched.
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 with the purpose and endpoint before the body-format caveat. Only 'Supply API fields in body' is close to filler, since the schema already establishes a body object.
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 zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description omits the most needed information: which fields can be changed, whether the update is a full replacement, and what the response contains. The annotations carry the safety profile, but the field-level semantics gap is not filled.
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% across the two parameters and none of the five body fields (name, admin, alert, email, username) carry descriptions. The description only says 'Supply API fields in body', which does not tell the agent which fields exist or what setting admin/alert actually does; the path string at least implies user_id is the target identifier.
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 ('Updates user details') and anchors it to the API endpoint PUT /users/{user_id}. It does not distinguish this from close siblings such as update_user_password, set_user_option, or update_project_user, which an agent could easily confuse for user modification.
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 choose this over update_user_password, set_user_option, or update_project_user, all of which appear in the sibling list. The reader is left to infer that this is the general-purpose user mutation, with no preconditions or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.