Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_integration_matcher

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific integration matcher for a project integration in Semaphore UI by matcher ID. Use it to inspect matcher configuration details.

Instructions

Get Integration Matcher. GET /project/{project_id}/integrations/{integration_id}/matchers/{matcher_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>",
      "integration_id": "<integration_id>",
      "matcher_id": "<matcher_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_integration_matcher"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
matcher_idYes
project_idYes
integration_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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the REST path; it says nothing about lookup failure behavior (e.g. 404 for an unknown matcher), permission requirements, or response content.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and path front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but so sparse that brevity is achieved by omission rather than by pruning.

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 three undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what a matcher object contains, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the return value and the ID nesting relationship.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only echoes the three IDs as path placeholders. It never states that matcher_id must belong to integration_id within project_id, which is the key constraint for correct invocation.

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?

The description restates the tool name ('Get Integration Matcher') and appends the raw REST route. It identifies the resource family but never says what a matcher actually is or what is returned, so it adds little beyond the name.

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 siblings such as list_integration_matchers, get_integration_matcher_references, or update_integration_matcher. The agent must infer from names alone that this is the single-item fetch.

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