SapperMCP

by MasterX1582

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Dconf Write

dconf_write

Write a dconf key value in GVariant syntax to change Linux desktop configuration settings.

Instructions

Write a dconf key (GVariant syntax value).

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "dconf_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the write overwrites an existing value, whether it is persistent across sessions, what happens on an invalid path or malformed GVariant, or what errors surface. The only behavioral hint is the GVariant syntax note, which is useful but far from sufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency, so it earns only a middling score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a two-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition omits nearly everything an agent needs to call it correctly and safely.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds meaning for `value` by specifying GVariant syntax, but says nothing about `path` — no dconf path format (e.g. /org/gnome/desktop/...), no leading-slash or schema requirement — leaving half the parameters uninterpretable without outside knowledge.

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 ("Write") and resource ("dconf key"), which cleanly separates it from the read/list siblings dconf_read and dconf_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a running dconf/D-Bus session), no statement about whether the key must already exist, and no routing to dconf_read to check a value first. The agent must infer all of this from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server