Semaphore UI MCP server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_access_key

Destructive

Add an access key to a Semaphore UI project by supplying the project ID and key details in the request body; keep JSON-encoded string fields as strings.

Instructions

Add access key. POST /project/{project_id}/keys. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "create_access_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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. The description adds the endpoint and a non-obvious serialization constraint (JSON-encoded string fields must stay strings), but says nothing about what the key grants, whether creation is reversible, or permission requirements.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The terseness is appropriate, though the third sentence's phrasing ("JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings") is dense and could be clearer.

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 mutating tool that creates a credential, with a 14-property nested body, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description leaves out the polymorphic body requirements and permission prerequisites, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only says to put API fields in the body. It never explains the critical relationship between the `type` enum (none/ssh/login_password/string) and which corresponding sub-object must be populated, nor the meaning of `owner`, `override_secret`, or the source_storage_* fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add access key") plus the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings like update_access_key, get_access_key, or list_access_keys, but the create semantics are clear.

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 versus update_access_key or the other key-related siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as project permissions. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server