Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semaphore UI MCP server

Semaphore UI MCP server

by johsem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_app

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a Semaphore UI app by supplying API fields in the request body, keeping JSON-encoded string fields as strings.

Instructions

set App. PUT /apps/{app_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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
app_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the crucial caveat that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, but it does not explain PUT replacement semantics or what existing app data may be lost despite destructiveHint=true.

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 short sentences front-load the action and endpoint, then add one format caveat. It is efficient, though the opening "set App" is overly terse.

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?

This is a destructive nested-body mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description needs to carry more weight. It omits replacement semantics, field-level meaning, and the consequences of a destructive update.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a nested body containing eight undocumented fields, the description must compensate but mostly does not. It says to supply API fields in body and that string fields must stay strings, which adds marginal guidance, but it never clarifies the meaning or effect of fields like priority, active, args, or path.

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?

"set App" is close to restating the tool name, but the PUT /apps/{app_id} endpoint does identify the resource and operation. It does not explain what an app is in this system or what aspects of it are being set, leaving the purpose only partially inferred.

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?

The description provides no indication of when to use this instead of siblings like set_app_active, delete_app, or get_app. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and endpoint alone.

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