Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Brainstorm Pick

sapper_brainstorm_pick

Select one brainstorm option and record rejection facts for sibling options in the same batch to conclude the choice.

Instructions

Pick one brainstorm option; siblings from the same batch are concluded with a rejection fact (like sapper brainstorm-pick).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_brainstorm_pick"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
cwdNo
storeNo.sapper

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 sibling options from the same batch are concluded with a rejection fact, which is an important side effect, but it does not explain reversibility, failure cases, or permission requirements.

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 definition is a single concise sentence with the core action front-loaded and no unnecessary wording.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the key rejection side effect is stated. However, for a mutation tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the definition leaves important operational details unspecified.

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 the description should compensate, but it only indirectly suggests that `id` identifies the selected brainstorm option. It says nothing about `cwd` or `store`.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Pick one brainstorm option.' It does not explicitly differentiate this from the similarly named sibling `sapper_pick`, so it falls short of the strongest clarity mark.

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 implies usage by saying to pick one brainstorm option but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternative tools such as `sapper_pick`.

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