semaphore-mcp-server

task_launch

Launch a new automation task from a template by specifying project and template IDs.

Instructions

Launch a new task from a template.

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>",
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "task_launch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	The ID of the project.
`template_id`	Yes	The ID of the template to run.
`debug`	No	Enable debug mode for the task.
`dry_run`	No	Perform a dry run (check mode).
`diff`	No	Show diff output.
`environment`	No	JSON string of extra environment variables.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. There is no mention of whether the operation is synchronous, idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description is too minimal.

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 very concise – one sentence – but it is not verbose or cluttered. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as mentioning key parameters or behavior.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the existence of an output schema (though not provided), the description does not need to detail return values. However, with 6 parameters and no additional context, the description feels incomplete for a tool that launches a task.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline level.

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 'Launch a new task from a template' clearly states the action (launch), the resource (task), and the source (template). It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_delete and task_stop, which perform different operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for choosing this tool over others.

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