Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

confirm_task

Destructive

Confirms a Semaphore UI task using its project and task IDs, marking it confirmed through the management API.

Instructions

Confirm Task. POST /project/{project_id}/tasks/{task_id}/confirm.

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>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "confirm_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say what state change occurs, whether the task must be awaiting confirmation, or whether the action is reversible.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy. The HTTP route line consumes space without conveying behavior an agent needs.

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?

For a non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot tell from the description what confirming accomplishes or what happens to the task afterwards.

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

Parameters2/5

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, but it only embeds the two IDs in a URL template. While the mapping of project_id and task_id to the path is mildly informative, no types, ranges, or meaning of 'confirm' relative to those IDs are added.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the tool name ('Confirm Task') and appends an HTTP route. It signals that the operation targets a project-scoped task, but it does not say what 'confirming' a task actually does or how it differs from siblings such as reject_task, get_task, or stop_task.

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 confirm a task versus rejecting it (reject_task) or simply inspecting it (get_task, wait_for_task). No preconditions, state requirements, or exclusions are given.

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