Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

test_project_notification

Destructive

Sends a test notification to all enabled project messengers, letting users verify notification delivery settings before relying on them.

Instructions

Sends a test notification to all enabled messengers for the project. POST /project/{project_id}/notifications/test.

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": "test_project_notification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the agent knows this reaches outside the system and changes state. The description adds useful scope detail ('all enabled messengers for the project'), but does not say that each invocation delivers real messages to external recipients or that the effect cannot be undone.

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?

Two short sentences, action first, endpoint second. No padding whatsoever.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. A brief note on the external side effect (real users receive messages) and the expected response would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry weight; it only ties the call to a project via 'for the project' and the POST path, without explaining that project_id must be an existing project or what happens for a project with no enabled messengers. The single self-naming parameter keeps this from being worse than a 3.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Sends a test notification to all enabled messengers for the project' — and identifies the exact endpoint. No sibling tool shares this responsibility, so nothing further is needed for disambiguation.

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?

The wording implies the use case (verifying that messenger integrations are configured and reachable), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no warning about how often to fire it, and no alternatives named such as inspecting integration values via list_integration_values.

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