Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_view_templates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the templates associated with a specific view in a Semaphore UI project using the project and view IDs, helping inspect view configuration before managing automation tasks.

Instructions

Get View Templates. GET /project/{project_id}/views/{view_id}/templates.

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>",
      "view_id": "<view_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_view_templates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
view_idYes
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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a raw REST endpoint, with no word on whether results are paginated, filtered, or scoped/inherited relative to the view.

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 very short sentences with the resource named first and the endpoint second. Nothing is padded, though the bare endpoint string is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 exists and annotations are present, but the description still fails to convey what gets returned (template objects? permissions? descriptions?) or how results relate to the view. For a tool with zero schema documentation, that leaves an agent guessing.

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 full burden. The endpoint path does at least map project_id and view_id to project and view scopes, but neither parameter's meaning (e.g., what a view is, whether IDs must exist) is explained.

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 verb 'Get' plus 'View Templates' identifies the resource, and the endpoint path clarifies these are templates associated with a specific view. However, it never states what a view template is or how it relates to the sibling list_templates / list_views tools, so an agent cannot easily distinguish it from those. Vague purpose overall.

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 guidance on when to call this versus list_templates, get_template, or list_views, and no preconditions stated. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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