Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_project_permissions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches the current user's permissions for a specified Semaphore UI project, letting MCP clients verify access before managing or viewing project resources.

Instructions

Fetch permissions of the current user for project. GET /project/{project_id}/role.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying REST route (GET /project/{project_id}/role), and says nothing about what is returned (role name vs. permission set) or what auth scope is required.

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 purpose; the endpoint line is secondary and does not obstruct scanning. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint is of marginal value to an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what 'permissions' means in the response shape (role vs. permission list), and it does not. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is the return-value semantics and error behavior for inaccessible projects.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only place to explain the single parameter. The path template hints that project_id identifies the project, but the description never states format, whether it must be a project the caller belongs to, or what happens for a non-member project.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Fetch permissions ... for project') and scopes it to 'the current user', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_role and list_project_roles. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_project_role, list_project_roles, or get_template_permission. The 'current user' scoping implies the use case but no alternative or exclusion is spelled out.

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