Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_task

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single Semaphore UI automation task by project ID and task ID to inspect its status and details.

Instructions

Get a single task. GET /project/{project_id}/tasks/{task_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>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST path, which implies project scoping but reveals nothing about task state, error behavior, or what is returned; for a task that may still be running, that omission matters.

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 fragments, purpose front-loaded, no padding. The REST path adds mild routing context rather than being pure filler.

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 and 0% parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the agent uninformed about the return shape or where to find logs/outputs (get_task_output). For a simple getter it is barely sufficient but clearly under-described.

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 carries the burden. The endpoint template signals that project_id and task_id are path identifiers, but it gives no format, type, or ID-source detail beyond that hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single task,' distinct from list-style siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_global_task, get_task_output, or get_task_raw_output, which an agent must choose between.

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 instead of list_tasks, get_global_task, or wait_for_task. The description gives no context or exclusions for choosing among these closely related task tools.

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