Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_access_key

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a specific access key from a Semaphore UI project using project ID and key ID to inspect stored credentials or configuration.

Instructions

Get Keys. GET /project/{project_id}/keys/{key_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>",
      "key_id": "<key_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_access_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_idYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only the endpoint path and provides no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the retrieved key object contains.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted sentences. However, it is composed of two terse fragments rather than a structured explanation, leaving most context to the schema and annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what a retrieved access key contains or how it is represented. It also leaves both required parameters undocumented despite 0% schema description coverage, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 the description should compensate, but it only exposes project_id and key_id through the URL path. It does not explain what these IDs refer to, their constraints, or how they relate to the access key resource.

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?

"Get Keys" is vague and plural, but the HTTP path GET /project/{project_id}/keys/{key_id} identifies retrieval of a single access key by ID. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_access_keys or get_access_key_references.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like list_access_keys or get_access_key_references. An agent must infer usage solely from the endpoint shape.

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