Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_tasks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves up to 1,000 tasks for a specified Semaphore UI project to support task status and history review. Use cursor-paginated alternatives for larger result sets.

Instructions

List up to 1000 project tasks. Use list_recent_tasks or list_recent_template_tasks for supported cursor pagination. GET /project/{project_id}/tasks.

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_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNo
orderNo
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add beyond that. It does so by disclosing the 1000-task cap and the lack of cursor pagination, which are actionable constraints. It stops short of describing the response shape or sort ordering behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, with the capability and its hard limit front-loaded before the sibling routing hint. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Read-only tool with no output schema, so the description should convey the return shape and sorting semantics. It covers the size cap and pagination alternative but leaves the two sort-related parameters and the response contents unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% for three parameters. The description only implies project_id via the path; it says nothing about what 'sort' accepts or how 'order' interacts with it, so two parameters remain undocumented in both schema and text. The description 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.

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... project tasks') plus the scope cap of 1000, which distinguishes it from the unbounded/unpaginated siblings. The endpoint path reinforces the project-scoped nature. An agent can immediately tell this apart from list_recent_tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_recent_tasks or list_recent_template_tasks when cursor pagination is needed, implying this tool is not paginated. That is a concrete when-to-use-which rule rather than vague 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