Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_schedule

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a schedule from a Semaphore UI project using its project ID and schedule ID.

Instructions

Deletes schedule. DELETE /project/{project_id}/schedules/{schedule_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>",
      "schedule_id": "<schedule_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
schedule_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path and does not explain irreversibility, cascade effects, or required permissions beyond what annotations already convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler; the verb and endpoint are front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 delete operation with no output schema and no documented parameters, the description is too thin. It should at least explain what is removed and any important side effects, even if annotations cover the safety hints.

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 both required integer parameters are undocumented in structured data. The endpoint path implies which parameters are needed, but the description does not explain their meaning, constraints, or relationships.

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 ('Deletes schedule') and adds the REST endpoint, which makes the project/schedule scoping clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as delete_template or set_schedule_active beyond the name, but the operation is still unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like set_schedule_active, update_schedule, or deleting a parent template. No prerequisites, warnings, or exclusion conditions are provided.

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