Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_environments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve environments for a Semaphore UI project to inspect deployment targets and configuration for automation setup.

Instructions

Get environment. GET /project/{project_id}/environment.

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_environments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNosorting name
orderNoordering manner
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP path — no mention of result size, default ordering, pagination, or whether an empty list or error is returned when a project has no environments.

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 very short fragments — no waste, but under-specified rather than concise. The endpoint path is arguably filler for an agent that cannot call HTTP routes directly.

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?

No output schema and no annotations beyond safety hints, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what a caller gets back. It does not: no mention of return shape, list vs single object, pagination, or behavior on an empty project.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the endpoint path does usefully reveal that project_id is a path parameter. However, sort and order semantics (what "name" sorting means, whether order applies only with sort) are left entirely to the terse schema descriptions, and project_id has no schema description at all.

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?

"Get environment. GET /project/{project_id}/environment." names the resource and the underlying endpoint, but the verb conflicts with the tool name (list_environments implies a collection, the description says singular "environment"). A sibling get_environment exists, so an agent cannot easily tell which of the two actually returns multiple environments.

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 indication of when to use this versus get_environment, create_environment, update_environment or sync_environment. The endpoint path is the only context, which is not usage guidance.

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