Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_view

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a view from a Semaphore UI project by project ID and view ID, removing the selected view from that project.

Instructions

Removes view. DELETE /project/{project_id}/views/{view_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>",
      "view_id": "<view_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
view_idYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST endpoint, with no mention of what exactly is removed, whether it's reversible, or permission requirements—little value beyond structured fields.

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 verb and resource. The endpoint line is compact and adds locational context without bloat.

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 destructive, project-scoped delete with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate given annotations cover the safety profile. It leaves gaps around parameter meaning and irreversibility that would help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 URL template (project/{project_id}/views/{view_id}) does map both parameters to their roles, providing some semantics. However, it adds no detail on meaning or constraints beyond what the path implies.

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 view'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling update_view/get_view. The REST path adds project scoping context, though it doesn't explicitly call out the project-level scope in prose.

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 alternatives like update_view or list_views, and no prerequisites (e.g., permissions, confirmation) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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