Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_project_runner

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a specific project runner from Semaphore UI using project and runner IDs to inspect its configuration and status.

Instructions

Get project runner. GET /project/{project_id}/runners/{runner_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>",
      "runner_id": "<runner_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_runner"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runner_idYes
project_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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only a REST endpoint path and no additional behavioral context such as authentication needs, error behavior, or response shape.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The HTTP path is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the structure remains efficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a project runner is, what the retrieval returns, or how the two required IDs relate to each other.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It only shows project_id and runner_id as path placeholders, without explaining what they identify, their integer constraints, or expected values beyond the schema's minimum of 1.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get project runner,' and includes the REST path. This clearly identifies a single-resource retrieval, but it does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as get_global_runner or list_project_runners.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_project_runners, get_global_runner, or other runner-related tools. The distinction is only implied by the word 'get' and the parameter names.

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