Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_repository_references

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all references (branches and tags) for a specified repository in a project to inspect available versions before configuring templates or tasks.

Instructions

Get Repository Refs. GET /project/{project_id}/repositories/{repository_id}/refs.

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>",
      "repository_id": "<repository_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_repository_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
repository_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path: it does not say what a 'ref' is, whether the result is paginated, or what happens when the repository has no refs.

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 two short fragments with zero padding and the resource is front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than in service of it.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at minimum say what a ref is (branches/tags/commit SHAs) and the shape of the return. It does neither, leaving the agent guessing about the payload.

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% and neither project_id nor repository_id is documented in the schema. The only hint is the embedded path template, which shows both are path segments, but nothing about valid values, ownership, or lookup behavior is conveyed.

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 Repository Refs') and appends the raw HTTP path. 'Refs' is Git jargon that is never explained, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_repository_branches, which plausibly returns overlapping data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives such as get_repository, list_repository_branches, or list_repository_playbooks. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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