Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_app

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details for a specific Semaphore UI application by its ID through the management API, enabling MCP clients to inspect app configuration and metadata.

Instructions

get App. GET /apps/{app_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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on error behavior for unknown IDs, no indication of scope or visibility, and no distinguishing detail for an openWorldHint=true tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short and front-loaded, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; both sentences are near-redundant with the name and schema.

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, no annotation-adjacent context, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description carries the full explanatory burden and fails to deliver. An agent still cannot tell what an 'app' object contains or how to source the ID.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter app_id has no description in the schema. The endpoint path implies app_id identifies the app, but the description never confirms this, states the format (numeric vs UUID), or explains where to obtain it.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"get App" merely restates the tool name, and "GET /apps/{app_id}" restates the endpoint rather than describing what an app is or what the call returns. There is no differentiation from siblings such as list_apps, update_app, or delete_app beyond the verb.

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 list_apps (to discover IDs) or update_app. The agent must infer that an app_id must first be known, and there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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