Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Complete

sapper_complete

Marks a project goal as satisfied based on specified fact IDs, with an optional note explaining the justification.

Instructions

Mark the project goal satisfied, justified by the given facts (like sapper complete --from f001,f005).

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": {
      "from_ids": "<from_ids>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_complete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
storeNo.sapper
workerNomcp
from_idsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a state mutation (goal becomes satisfied) but says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., must facts/claims exist first?), side effects on open claims, reversibility, or failure modes. Only the fact-justification requirement is conveyed.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its justification requirement. No filler, though the CLI-flag example is somewhat more compact than helpful for an MCP caller.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Placeholder — see note below.

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% across 4 parameters, yet the description explains only `from_ids` indirectly through a CLI example. `note`, `store`, and `worker` get no meaning at all, and the expected ID format for `from_ids` is left to inference.

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 names a specific verb+resource: "Mark the project goal satisfied," and adds the justification condition (given facts). That is far more specific than a tautology, though it offers no differentiation from adjacent goal/mutation tools such as sapper_done.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The parenthetical `sapper complete --from f001,f005` is CLI syntax, not usage guidance, so an agent gets no signal on when to call this instead of another goal-completing sibling.

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