Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_access_key

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes an access key from a Semaphore UI project using the project ID and key ID.

Instructions

Removes access key. DELETE /project/{project_id}/keys/{key_id}.

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>",
      "key_id": "<key_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_access_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_idYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds only the route, revealing that keys are project-scoped, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, whether access is revoked immediately, or what happens to anything referencing the key.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the route. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and entirely undocumented parameters, the description is missing consequences, authorization expectations, and any confirmation semantics. An agent has enough to fire the call but not enough to be confident about side effects.

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 neither parameter is described. The route template conveys that key_id is nested under project_id, which is a small but real gain; otherwise the meaning of the two required integer IDs is left entirely to the schema's type/minimum constraints.

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 ('Removes access key') and pins the exact REST route, so its scope (a key inside a project) is unambiguous. The verb also implicitly distinguishes it from the create/update/get/list access key siblings, though none are named.

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, create_access_key, or whether deletion is the right remedy for a compromised key. There are no prerequisites, warnings, or exclusions.

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