Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Doc

sapper_doc

Reads or writes a node's detailed documentation, using the gist as title and doc as detail; set content inline or from a file.

Instructions

Read or write a node's detailed doc (title=gist, doc=detail).

sapper_doc(id) returns the doc; pass set or set_file to write.

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_doc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
setNo
storeNo.sapper
set_fileNo

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a mutating mode ('pass `set` or `set_file` to write') but says nothing about whether a write overwrites or appends to an existing doc, whether the node must already exist, or what the `store` location means — material gaps for a write-capable tool.

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 tight sentences with the read case placed first and the write trigger after it; nothing is padding. The parenthetical 'title=gist, doc=detail' is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it is front-loaded and earns its space.

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-value explanation is not required, but with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions the definition should do more. The unexplained `store` parameter and the undisclosed overwrite/creation behavior on write leave an agent guessing before invocation.

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% with four parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It covers `id`, mentions `set`/`set_file` as the write path, and hints that doc content is the 'detail', but never distinguishes the inline-string `set` from the file-path `set_file`, and leaves `store` (default '.sapper') entirely unexplained.

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 pair and resource ('Read or write a node's detailed doc') and clarifies the data model with 'title=gist, doc=detail', which tells an agent what a 'doc' actually is in this system. It does not differentiate itself from the many siblings (sapper_kb, sapper_fact, sapper_capture) that plausibly store notes, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'`sapper_doc(id)` returns the doc; pass `set` or `set_file` to write' gives a read-vs-write switch, but that is parameter mechanics rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings like sapper_kb or sapper_fact, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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