Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_user_totp_qr

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the QR code for a user's TOTP two-factor authentication entry so you can enroll or restore an authenticator app.

Instructions

Totp Qr. GET /users/{user_id}/2fas/totp/{totp_id}/qr.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "totp_id": "<totp_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_totp_qr"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totp_idYes
user_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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path — no note that it returns sensitive secret/QR data, no auth or permission context, and no statement of what happens when the TOTP entry doesn't exist.

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 fragments with zero filler and the resource named first. It is not bloated, but the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency.

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-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should say what is returned (a QR image, a URI, or base64 payload) and any sensitivity caveat. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape.

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 carries the burden, and it only partly does so: the path template shows user_id scopes to a user and totp_id identifies a specific TOTP entry. It adds no format, validity, or error semantics for the two required integer parameters.

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 is essentially the tool name restated ('Totp Qr') plus a raw HTTP path. The path does reveal the resource hierarchy (a user's TOTP entry), which is marginally more than a pure tautology, but no verb or explanation of what the call actually returns is given.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. Siblings such as enable_user_totp, disable_user_totp, and get_user_options are plausibly related, and the description gives no basis for choosing among them or for knowing what prerequisite state (TOTP enabled?) is required.

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