Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Claim

sapper_claim

Claim an open intent for a worker to assign ownership and let the agent proceed with the security assessment task.

Instructions

Claim an open intent for a worker.

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>",
      "worker": "<worker>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
storeNo.sapper
workerYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the action. It omits what claiming actually does (locking, assignment, side effects), what happens if the intent is already claimed or missing, and whether the operation is idempotent or reversible.

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, so it is structurally clean. Yet it is undersized for a state-changing tool with three parameters, leaving too much unsaid rather than being appropriately sized.

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 not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition is not complete enough. It lacks the operational context an agent needs to invoke it 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% and the description adds only an implicit mapping: 'intent' to id and 'worker' to worker. It does not explain the id format, what the 'store' parameter means or defaults to, or valid values, leaving all three parameters substantially undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('open intent') scoped to a worker, so the core action is identifiable. However, 'intent' is domain jargon left undefined, and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like sapper_release or sapper_complete that likely operate on the same intents.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the intent must be open and unclaimed), and no exclusions. An agent must infer the entire workflow context.

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