Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

resolve_workflow_approval

Destructive

Approve or reject a pending workflow approval node in Semaphore UI to unblock or cancel a workflow run. Submit the decision for a specific project, workflow run, and node.

Instructions

Resolve workflow approval. Availability depends on Semaphore edition, license, and permissions; some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. POST /project/{project_id}/workflows/{workflow_id}/runs/{run_id}/approvals/{node_id}. Supply API fields in body; JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings.

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>",
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>",
      "run_id": "<run_id>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_workflow_approval"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
run_idYes
node_idYes
project_idYes
workflow_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the edition/license/permission gating and that some routes 404 or return empty lists. It does not spell out that resolving commits an approve/reject decision irreversibly, which matters given destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the action comes first, then the caveat, then the endpoint. The endpoint string and the string-fields note are slightly terse but earn their place.

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?

No output schema exists and the tool is a destructive mutation with five undocumented parameters. Edition/permission caveats are covered, but the meaning of the path identifiers and the effect of the status value are absent, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 must carry the burden. It only says to supply API fields in the body and that JSON-encoded string fields stay strings; the four path identifiers (project_id, workflow_id, run_id, node_id) and the status enum are never explained.

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 specific verb and resource ('Resolve workflow approval') and pins it to a concrete POST endpoint, which clearly separates it from the read-only sibling list_workflow_run_approvals. It stops short of saying explicitly that it approves or rejects a pending approval node.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Adds a useful availability constraint (edition, license, permissions, 404/empty-list behavior on Community), which tells the agent when the call may fail. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as reject_task or what precondition (a pending approval) must hold.

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