Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Package Install

package_install

Installs Debian/Ubuntu packages via apt-get with sudo, optionally updating package lists first and configuring a timeout.

Instructions

Install packages via apt-get install -y (sudo).

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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "package_install"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesYespackage names, e.g. ["htop", "curl"]
timeoutNoapt timeout in seconds
update_firstNorun apt-get update before installing

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that installation runs through apt-get with the non-interactive -y flag and sudo privileges, but it omits whether existing packages are upgraded, how failures are handled, and what system changes result.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action, command, and privilege requirement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema fully documents parameters. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves out usage alternatives and important behavioral details such as upgrade semantics and failure handling.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents names, timeout, and update_first. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Install packages") plus the exact mechanism ("apt-get install -y (sudo)"). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from siblings such as package_update, package_upgrade, or package_remove.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus package_update or package_upgrade, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit need for sudo. The agent must infer usage context entirely.

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