Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_access_keys

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve access keys linked to a specific Semaphore UI project, with optional sorting by name or type and ascending or descending order.

Instructions

Get access keys linked to project. GET /project/{project_id}/keys.

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": "list_access_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNosorting name
orderNoordering manner
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 and non-destructive; the description only restates the GET verb via the raw endpoint path. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering defaults, or what fields each key entry carries.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The raw REST path is redundant given the tool name but costs little.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should say what a returned key looks like (id, name, type) and whether results are paginated or capped. None of that is present, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 67% (sort and order documented, project_id not), and the description adds nothing beyond the path template. It never explains that 'sort' and 'order' take enum values nor how they interact, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb+resource+scope: 'Get access keys linked to project'. The plural 'keys' plus project scoping distinguishes it from the singular get_access_key sibling, though only implicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, get_access_key, or the related list_api_tokens. The agent must infer from the plural noun that this is the bulk listing tool.

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