Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Dispatch

sapper_dispatch

Run a single commander or executor agent step for a specified target such as reason, verify, blindspot, brainstorm, or an intent ID.

Instructions

Run one commander/executor step via the agent CLI (like sapper dispatch <target>).

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_dispatch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNo
claimNo(explore) claim the intent first
modelNoagent model (default $SAPPER_MODEL or 'sonnet')
storeNo.sapper
intentNo(verify) intent id to verify
targetYesreason | verify | blindspot | brainstorm | <intent-id>
dry_runNoprint the rendered prompt and exit
timeoutNoper-call agent timeout seconds (default $SAPPER_TIMEOUT 600)
templatesNo
backgroundNorun in a PTY session, return session_id immediately
max_optionsNo(brainstorm) number of options to generate
exec_timeoutNosync-mode cap on the whole subprocess
skip_permissionsNo

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it spawns an agent subprocess but doesn't mention that it makes model calls (cost/latency), that it mutates store state, that it needs credentials or a configured model, or how background/dry_run alter behavior. The only hint of behavior is the word "Run" and the CLI reference.

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 sentence, front-loaded, with no padding. The parenthetical CLI mapping is useful compactly, though the jargon-heavy phrasing costs some clarity.

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?

For a 13-parameter orchestration tool with no annotations, the description is far too thin. An output schema covers return values, but the mode semantics, side effects, and parameter interactions an agent needs before invoking it are missing.

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 coverage is 69%, below the threshold where the schema alone suffices, and the description adds zero meaning for any of the 13 parameters. It never explains target modes, what claim/intent do, or how timeouts and skip_permissions interact — all of which the schema only partially documents.

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?

The description gives a verb ("Run") and a rough object ("one commander/executor step via the agent CLI") plus a CLI analogue, so an agent can guess it dispatches a Sapper target. But "commander/executor step" is internal jargon, and the meaningful scope — the target modes (reason, verify, blindspot, brainstorm, intent-id) — lives only in the schema. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like sapper_cli, sapper_command, or sapper_auto.

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 statement of when to dispatch versus call sapper_cli, sapper_command, sapper_auto, or the mode-specific siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance on choosing among the target modes that the tool supports.

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