Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Capture

sapper_capture

Capture recent output from an authorized tmux peer to inspect session activity and optionally log or store the captured lines.

Instructions

Capture recent output from an authorized tmux peer (like sapper capture).

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": {
      "peer": "<peer>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_capture"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNo
logNo
peerYes
linesNo
storeNo.sapper
channelNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses little. It implies a read of recent output but never says whether the call has side effects (the 'log' and 'store' parameters suggest it might write to disk), what 'recent' means, or how failures with unauthorized peers appear.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical reference to the CLI command adds little for an agent but costs only a few words, so it is not a real defect.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but the rest is thin: six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no stated interaction model with the peer. For a tool this parameterized, the description should at least identify what 'peer', 'channel', and 'store' denote.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them. Peer, channel, cwd, lines, log, and store are all left for the agent to guess, so the description adds no meaning beyond bare names and defaults.

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 and resource: capture recent output from a tmux peer. The phrase 'authorized tmux peer' partly distinguishes it from the capture_screen siblings, which target screens rather than peers, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only contextual hint is the word 'authorized', which implies a prerequisite but does not say how authorization is established or which sibling to use for non-peer capture.

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