semaphore-mcp-server

repository_create

Create a new repository within a Semaphore project using a Git URL and SSH key for authentication.

Instructions

Create a new repository.

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": "<name>",
      "git_url": "<git_url>",
      "ssh_key_id": "<ssh_key_id>"
    },
    "name": "repository_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	The ID of the project.
`name`	Yes	Repository name.
`git_url`	Yes	Git URL of the repository.
`ssh_key_id`	Yes	ID of the SSH key for authentication.
`git_branch`	No	Git branch to use (default: main).	main

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create a new repository', disclosing no side effects, permissions, error states, or constraints. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the basic purpose. However, it is slightly too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description offers no context about return values, prerequisites, or how the parameters relate. It is incomplete for guiding an agent through the full usage scenario.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema fields, so it neither harms nor improves parameter understanding.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Create a new repository' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (repository), distinguishing it from sibling tools like repository_delete, repository_get, and repository_list. However, it adds no specificity beyond the tool name, so it is clear but minimal.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about scenarios. It is purely a statement of the action.

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