Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

disable_user_totp

DestructiveIdempotent

Disable TOTP two-factor authentication for a user by deleting the specified TOTP entry, removing that authentication method from their account.

Instructions

Disable Totp. DELETE /users/{user_id}/2fas/totp/{totp_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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "totp_id": "<totp_id>"
    },
    "name": "disable_user_totp"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totp_idYes
user_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 openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, saying nothing about required auth level, what the user loses (access lockout, other 2FA methods untouched), or error behavior when totp_id does not exist.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the action. The endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the schema and annotations but is compact enough not to hurt.

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 mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should state auth requirements, consequences, and failure modes. Annotations cover the safety hints, but the picture an agent needs to call this confidently is still incomplete.

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% for both required parameters. The embedding of user_id and totp_id in the path only restates their names; neither the schema nor the description explains what totp_id identifies (a TOTP enrollment/device ID) or what values are valid beyond the integer/minimum constraint.

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 ('Disable') and resource ('Totp') scoped to a user, and the DELETE path confirms it removes a specific TOTP registration. An agent can distinguish it from enable_user_totp, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the inverse enable_user_totp or get_user_totp_qr alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool 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