Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

set_server_option

Destructive

Sets a server option by posting a key-value pair to /options, enabling configuration changes via the Semaphore UI management API.

Instructions

set Option. POST /options. 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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "set_server_option"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds nothing about what gets overwritten or what permissions are needed. For a destructive mutation, the absence of any consequence disclosure is a notable gap.

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?

Very short, but the opening 'set Option' sentence is pure restatement and earns nothing. The encoding note is the only substantive sentence and is buried last.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with one undocumented parameter and no output schema needs far more than a three-word purpose and an encoding hint; valid keys and effects are unknown to the agent.

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 0% and the body is a key/value $ref, but the description does add real meaning: the body carries API fields and JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings. It still never says which keys are valid or what value types are accepted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

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

'set Option. POST /options.' largely restates the tool name, adding only the HTTP endpoint. It never says what an 'Option' is server-wide, nor distinguishes this from set_user_option or get_server_options.

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 statement of when to use this versus the closely related set_user_option, nor of required admin privileges. The only usage-adjacent line concerns body encoding, not tool selection.

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