Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_global_task

DestructiveIdempotent

Stops or removes a task from the global running or queued task pool for administrator use via Semaphore UI.

Instructions

Stop or remove a task from the global running/queued task pool (administrator only). DELETE /tasks/{task_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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_global_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the admin-only permission requirement, but does not clarify the ambiguity it introduces (does it stop a running task, or delete a queued one) or what happens to task output.

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 compact clauses with the core action and the admin constraint front-loaded; no filler. The 'Stop or remove' hedge is the only thing that could be tightened.

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?

For a single-param destructive delete with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the unresolvable stop-vs-delete ambiguity and the undocumented task_id, which an agent cannot fill from the schema.

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?

Only one parameter, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description gives no detail beyond the DELETE /tasks/{task_id} path, which merely implies task_id is a task identifier. It doesn't state whether task_id refers to a global-scope task specifically.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Stop or remove a task') scoped to the 'global running/queued task pool' and gives the endpoint. The 'global' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling delete_task, though the dual 'stop or remove' framing slightly blurs exactly what happens.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'(administrator only)' is a useful precondition, but the description never says when to pick this over delete_task, stop_task, reject_task, or clear_cluster_tasks. Usage must be inferred from the word 'global' and the running/queued phrase.

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