Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_template_permission

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a permission entry from a Semaphore UI template using project, template, and permission IDs to revoke template access.

Instructions

Delete Template Perm. DELETE /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/perms/{perm_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>",
      "template_id": "<template_id>",
      "perm_id": "<perm_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_template_permission"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
perm_idYes
project_idYes
template_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST path and says nothing about what is removed, required permissions, or side effects beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The only weakness is the unexplained abbreviation 'Perm' and the raw endpoint notation, which is slightly cryptic but still compact.

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 operation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is thin. It omits prerequisites, failure modes, and the effect of deleting the permission, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The endpoint path maps each of the three required IDs to its role in the resource hierarchy, but it does not explain what a perm_id represents or how to obtain one.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a delete action on a template permission, and the HTTP endpoint clarifies the resource nesting (project → template → perm). However, the abbreviated 'Template Perm' and lack of explicit sibling differentiation (vs. update/get/list_template_permissions) keep it at merely adequate.

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 tool versus alternatives such as update_template_permission or delete_template. The agent must infer from the name that this removes a single permission assignment.

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