Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

leave_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes your membership from a specified Semaphore UI project by project ID.

Instructions

Left Project. DELETE /project/{project_id}/me.

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": "leave_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and does not explain consequences such as loss of access, effect on owned resources, required permissions, or whether the action can be undone.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded, but the first fragment "Left Project" is grammatically odd and the endpoint restates implementation detail rather than user-facing semantics. It is concise without being especially informative.

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 destructive membership mutation with a single undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks consequences, authorization context, and sibling differentiation, which an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, project_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description shows project_id in the path but does not explain its meaning, acceptable project scope, or whether it must correspond to a project the caller belongs to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase "Left Project" is awkward and close to a restatement of the tool name, but the endpoint "DELETE /project/{project_id}/me" clarifies that it removes the authenticated user's membership from a project. It does not distinguish this from siblings like delete_project or delete_project_user, leaving the precise scope only partially clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as delete_project_user. The endpoint implies a self-removal operation, but the agent must infer when this is appropriate versus other project-membership 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