semaphore-mcp-server

key_list

List all credentials (keys) in a Semaphore project. Provide project ID to retrieve keys with optional sorting.

Instructions

List all keys (credentials) in a project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "key_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The ID of the project.
`sort`	No	Field to sort by.	name
`order`	No	Sort order (asc or desc).	asc

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when project_id is invalid. For a read-only list tool, minimal disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no redundant words. Efficiently communicates the core function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values are documented. However, description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an agent to understand context and limitations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all three parameters (project_id, sort, order) with basic meaning. Description adds no extra semantics beyond 'list all keys'. Baseline 3 given 100% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'List all keys (credentials) in a project.' Uses specific verb 'list', identifies resource 'keys', and specifies scope 'in a project'. Distinguishes from siblings like key_get and key_delete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like key_get for single key retrieval or key_delete. Lacks context on when listing is appropriate or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.