Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

clear_project_cache

DestructiveIdempotent

Clears the cache for a specific Semaphore UI project, removing stale cached data so subsequent automation runs read fresh project state. Use it when cached values cause outdated behavior.

Instructions

Clear Cache. DELETE /project/{project_id}/cache.

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": "clear_project_cache"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description only echoes the HTTP method (DELETE) via the endpoint, adding no context about what is destroyed or the impact on in-flight tasks.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two short fragments with no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient but so sparse that it borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotations explaining consequences, yet the description offers only a name and endpoint. It omits what the cache is, whether the operation is reversible, and any guidance an agent needs before invoking a destructive call.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does show project_id as a path segment in the URL template, hinting it identifies the target project, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond that.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb 'Clear' plus the endpoint path '/project/{project_id}/cache' do indicate that it clears a specific project's cache, which is more specific than the bare name. However, 'Clear Cache' restates the tool name and never states what cache or what the effect is, leaving scope implicit.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus siblings like clear_server_cache, clear_global_runner_cache, or clear_project_runner_cache. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools