SapperMCP

by MasterX1582

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Sapper Fleet

sapper_fleet

Manage a tmux worker fleet to initialize, start, stop, inspect status, and hire or fire workers for a target challenge.

Instructions

Manage the tmux worker fleet (like sapper fleet).

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_fleet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwd`	No
`file`	No
`action`	Yes
`target`	No
`minutes`	No
`max_steps`	No
`extra_args`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals almost nothing about behavior: it does not say that down/fire tear down workers, whether operations are reversible, what permissions or working directory are required, or that this spawns real tmux processes. Only the pointer to the CLI equivalent ('like `sapper fleet`') hints at the execution model.

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 lines with the resource statement front-loaded and the action vocabulary immediately after; nothing is padded. The telegraphic style ('hire also minutes/max_steps/extra_args') is efficient but borders on cryptic for an unfamiliar reader.

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?

This is a multi-mode orchestration tool with seven parameters and zero schema coverage, yet the description never defines what any action does beyond its name and leaves two parameters undocumented. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the operational semantics of init/up/down/status and the destructive nature of down/fire are missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to compensate, and it partially does: it enumerates valid action values and maps target/minutes/max_steps/extra_args to the hire and fire actions. However, cwd and file are never mentioned, and minutes/max_steps/extra_args are given no units, formats, or defaults, leaving real ambiguity for a 7-parameter tool.

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 ('Manage the tmux worker fleet') and backs it with an explicit action enumeration (init | up | down | status | hire | fire | workers), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not name a sibling or explain how it differs from fleet-adjacent tools like sapper_peers or sapper_dispatch, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

The action list implies which mode to pick, and the note that hire/fire take target=<challenge name> gives a selection rule for those two actions. But nothing explains what init vs up vs down actually do or when an agent should choose one over the other, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server